ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the orders, dated 12.10.2017, in I.A.No.1673 of 2014 in O.S.No.373 of 2007, on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. I.A.No.1673 of 2014 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 2632 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘ÇPC’). The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the application are that the petitioner/defendant No.1 has come to know about filing of the suit only on 27.03.2013 when a notice in I.A.No.348 of 2013 under Order XX Rule 18 CPC was served on her. She could not met her previous counsel either to file the counter or to take necessary steps and that because of her illiteracy, as suit summons were not served, she could not appear before the Court. 3. This application is resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs, who filed a detailed counter before the trial Court stating that false allegations are made about the ground of illiteracy, ill-health, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay. All the allegations are only scripted for the purpose of this application. In fact, the petitioner/defendant No.1 is aware of the suit proceedings and the proceedings in I.A.No.1983 of 2012, I.A.No.1984 of 2012 and I.A.No.3235 of 2007 and that there are no merits in the application. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit. 6. The 1st defendant has filed the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2632 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her. The sole contention of the petitioner is that suit summons were not served upon her and that only on 27.03.2013 when the notice in I.A.No.348 of 2013 filed under Order XX Rule 18 CPC was served on her, she came to know about the original suit and filed the present application before the trial Court. 7. The sole contention of the petitioner is that suit summons were not served upon her and that only on 27.03.2013 when the notice in I.A.No.348 of 2013 filed under Order XX Rule 18 CPC was served on her, she came to know about the original suit and filed the present application before the trial Court. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently contends that the Court below failed to assign any reason, much less proper reason and that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. On a query posed by this Court in the course of hearing, it is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the evidence on behalf of plaintiffs is concluded and the suit is being adjourned for defendants’ evidence and also submitted that pursuant to the orders impugned, defendant No.1 was brought on record, filed written statement. Issues are settled. P.Ws.1 and 2 were also cross-examined on behalf of defendant No.1. 8. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 seeks to submit that there is no irregularity in the order impugned and in fact, pursuant to the orders impugned, the 1st defendant has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and that application is allowed. The 1st defendant has filed the written statement. Issues were settled. Thereafter evidence on behalf of plaintiffs is concluded. Defendant No.1 has cross-examined P.Ws.1 & 2. In the course of defence evidence, D.W.1 is examined and he was also cross-examined and that the defendants’ evidence is closed and the original suit stands adjourned for arguments after closure of evidence on both sides. 9. Thus, subsequent to the order impugned, much water has flown into and the impugned orders are given effect, defendant No.1 is brought on record, he has filed his written statement. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, deals with condonation of delay on showing sufficient cause. The expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act is subject to various factors. 10. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, deals with condonation of delay on showing sufficient cause. The expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act is subject to various factors. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others, (1972) 1 SCC 366 while considering the scope of expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act, held that the said expression should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. 11. In the case of N.Bala Krishnan v. M.Krishna Murthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while condoning the delay of 883 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics which seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of Limitation Act has to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. 12. Thus, the need to explain everyday’s delay is no longer necessary. The length of delay is not the criteria but the correctness of the reasons or the explanation for the delay is important factor. The Courts should take liberal, pragmatic justice oriented non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the Courts are not supposed to legalize injustice, but are obliged to remove the injustice. 13. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the original Suit No.373 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiffs against defendants for partition and separate possession. It appears that suit was decreed as the defendants remained absent and an ex parte decree was passed on 22.08.2017. Thereafter, during final decree proceedings, notice was served on defendant No.1. In response to the said notice, she has approached her counsel and filed this application to condone the delay of 2632 days. 14. Be it stated that there cannot be any straight jacket formula while considering the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Thereafter, during final decree proceedings, notice was served on defendant No.1. In response to the said notice, she has approached her counsel and filed this application to condone the delay of 2632 days. 14. Be it stated that there cannot be any straight jacket formula while considering the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal, the technical considerations should not be given undue importance or emphasis. Courts are expected to play the scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties while considering the explanation offered by the parties to ascertain whether there is any sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the case on hand, undisputedly defendant No.1 did not appear in the original suit and an ex parte decree was passed. It is only during final decree proceedings she appeared, filed the present application. Trial Court has considered the said application holding that the defendant No.1 is illiterate, she is not aware of Court proceedings. 15. Be that as it may, though the reason assigned by the trial Court may not be correct, but the trial Court has arrived at a right conclusion considering the nature of the dispute as the rights of parties in respect of immovable properties are involved. Further, pursuant to the orders impugned, defendant No.1 has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Ex parte decree was set aside. Written statement is filed. Issues are settled. Thereafter on behalf of plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 & 2 are examined. These two witnesses were also cross-examined by the defendants. Later, on behalf of defendants, this defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1. Defendants’ evidence is also closed and the original suit is being posted for arguments. At this stage, as the parties have acted upon the impugned orders and that the trial Court has rightly adopted a liberal and pragmatic approach by giving an opportunity to the defendant No.1 to contest the suit for partition, I find no irregularity or infirmities in the order impugned and it is sustainable. 16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order impugned, dated 12.10.2017. 16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order impugned, dated 12.10.2017. However, considering the nature and status of the original suit, since it relates to the year 2007, the trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the disposal of the original suit and shall make every endeavor to dispose of the same within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. There shall be no order as to the costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.