JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order dated 25.02.2020, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP, in an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order passed by learned District Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the application which stood filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was wrongly allowed by the learned Appellate Court without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was not of 12-13 days, as pleaded therein, but was of 28 days. He further submits that on this count, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered view, there is no merit in the present petition. Be it delay of 12-13 days or of 28 days, such delay, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be inordinate delay. That being the case, as the endeavour of the Court has to be, to decide the lis before it on merit, I find no perversity in the order passed by learned Court below vide which the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been allowed. 4. As far as the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that each and every day's delay in filing the appeal has to be explained, is concerned, in my considered view, there is no straight jacket formula in this regard, as has been held in umpteen number of cases by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the principle has to be applied keeping in view the facts of each case. 5. In the present case, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the present respondent, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The judgment so passed by learned Trial Court was assailed by way of appeal, which was barred by 12-13 days as per the appellant/plaintiff and by 28 days as per the present petitioners/defendants. 5. In the present case, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the present respondent, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The judgment so passed by learned Trial Court was assailed by way of appeal, which was barred by 12-13 days as per the appellant/plaintiff and by 28 days as per the present petitioners/defendants. As already stated hereinabove, in my considered view, as the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal cannot be said to be inordinate delay, therefore, learned Appellate Court rightly allowed the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by observing that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. A party which approaches the Court by way of appeal, though beyond the period of limitation, but within some reasonable time as from the date of expiry of period of limitation, cannot be said to be adopting dilatory tactics. Therefore, in this particular case, stringent condition to explain delay of each and every day in filing the appeal cannot be imposed upon the parties concerned. 6. Accordingly, as the Court does not finds any infirmity in the order passed by learned Court below, this petition is dismissed in limine. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.