JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi for the Petitioner. Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the Respondent. 2. Rule. 3. By way of preferring the present Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner / Original Applicant – Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, has challenged the order dated 17.8.2021 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Application”) by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Amreli [hereinafter referred to as “the learned Judge”], whereby the learned learned Judge has rejected the Application, seeking condonation of delay, in preferring the Appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli, dated 26.9.2019 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay, whereby the Application filed by the Petitioner (Original Applicant) came to be rejected. 4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order runs contrary to the settled principle of law inasmuch as the Petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to meet with their case on merits and application filed for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal, which ought to have been allowed by the learned Judge keeping in view the liberal approach. It is argued that the findings are contrary to the material placed on record and therefore, the findings suffer from vice of non-application of mind to the real controversy involved and the material placed on record. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that learned Judge has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence. It is submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered the term “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the delay in preferring the Appeal ought to have been condoned. 5. To support his submission, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has referred and relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited v. Kailashben Yogendra Shankar Pandya, reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL - HC 24577, whereby this Court has allowed the Petition. He has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Mahendrabhai Nagjibhai Patel v. Ilaben Mahendrabhai Patel, reported in 2005 (2) GLH 150 whereby also this Court has allowed the Revision Application. He has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Mahendrabhai Nagjibhai Patel v. Ilaben Mahendrabhai Patel, reported in 2005 (2) GLH 150 whereby also this Court has allowed the Revision Application. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has further submitted that refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. He therefore submitted that considering the judgments cited at the bar and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the delay ought to have been condoned by the learned Trial Judge in preferring the Appeal. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the Petitioners and also considered the contentions raised in the memo of petition and has also perused the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the learned Judge in Civil Misc. Application No. 5 of 2020 and has gone through the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the said order. 7. Needless to state that the guidelines while considering the applications for condonation of delay have been far too well settled. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Mst. Katiji; 1987 (2) S.C.C. 107 : ( AIR 1987 SC 1353 ), the guidelines have been laid down as under : "(1) Litigant does not stand benefitted by lodging an appeal late; (2) Refusal to condone may result in meritorious matters being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated; (3) In the matter of explanation of every day's delay, pedantic approach should be avoided. Rational common sense pragmatic approach should be invariably adopted; (4) Substantial justice is to be preferred against technical flaws; (5) There is no presumption that delay is always deliberate; (6) Injustice is to be removed." 8. Bearing in mind above principles if one examines the matter in hand, though it is expected that the delay of each day is to be explained, the courts are supposed to take a pragmatic view rather than a pedantic one. It is expected that the rights are allowed to be determined on merits rather than by default. The parties are litigating for damages. The Petitioner is the Original Applicant in the Suit. It is expected that the rights are allowed to be determined on merits rather than by default. The parties are litigating for damages. The Petitioner is the Original Applicant in the Suit. The reason explained by the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court is that the application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order of the learned lower court was applied by the Petitioner on 5.10.2019 and the same was provided on 18.10.2019. On receiving the same, the Petitioner has sent his proposal to its higher officer on 22.10.2019 to file Civil Appeal against the said judgment and order dated 26.9.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli and the approval of the same has been given vide letter dated 27.12.2019 i.e. after almost two months. 9. True it is that the Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its rigors. Even if the consequences are harsh it has to be applied in an appropriate case even to non suit a person. However, when in the matter in hand, there is sufficient reason demonstrated by the applicant the delay deserves to be condoned by awarding some cost to the Petitioner / Original Applicant. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the delay in preferring the Appeal ought to have been allowed by the learned Trial Judge in view of the various pronouncements by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. The present Petition therefore deserves to be allowed. The order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Amreli in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.