ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, resulting in consequential dismissal of first appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the respondent/employee preferred a claim before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society for the purpose of his re-engagement as Process Server/Peon. The Deputy Registrar vide order dated 4.7.2018 allowed the claim of the employee and directed the petitioner/Bank to re-engage the respondent/employee. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner/Bank challenged the order before the Tribunal on the ground of limitation, which set aside the order of Deputy Registrar and remanded the matter directing the Deputy Registrar to frame an issue in relation to the limitation and thereafter decide the matter. 5. The Deputy Registrar, thereafter framed the issue on limitation and decided the matter in favour of respondent/employee by order dated 4.7.2018. It is stated that being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/Bank engaged a local counsel, who drafted the first appeal and sent it through post on 4.9.2018, which was received by the Tribunal on 7.9.2018. As the first appeal was filed with delay, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act after hearing the parties, resultantly the first appeal also stood dismissed. 6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the section 5 application for the reason that the date wise details showing the reasons for delay were not elaborated in the application. 7. In the case of Improvement Trust Ludhiyana v. Ujagar Singh and another (2010) 6 SCC 786 the Supreme Court has observed : "16. While considering the application for condonation of delay no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. 19. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. 19. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders and the matter is remitted to the Executing Court to consider and dispose of the appellant's objections filed under Order 21 rule 90 of CPC on merits and in accordance with law, at an early date. It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities." 8. In the present case, it is noted that the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 4.7.2018 allowed the application of respondent/employee. It is noted by the Tribunal that the counsel for the petitioner had obtained the certified copy on the same day, however, the respondent/ employee had also served a copy of the order on the petitioner/Bank on 24.7.2018 along with an application. However, the appeal was sent by post and received by the Tribunal on 7.9.2018. 9. Even if, it is considered that the counsel for the petitioner/Bank received the copy of the order on 4.7.2018, then also the delay is of mere 35 days only, which was not so huge warranting dismissal of the first appeal on hyper technical ground. 10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. As a consequence the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the first appeal on merits. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. 12. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. ................