ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court dated 23.01.2019 in I.A. No.707 of 2014 in RA(SR) No.4543 of 2014, wherein, the petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 356 days in filing the appeal against the eviction orders, dated 09.10.2013 in R.C.No.366 of 2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is not personally attending to the Tribunal due to her old aged ailments, and her husband was attending. After the death of her husband, the petitioner and other legal heirs were not attending the Tribunal because her elder son is residing in abroad for his livelihood and younger son is not abled person. It is further alleged that she had no knowledge about the pendency of the application before the Rent Controller and without her knowledge, notice eviction orders were passed on 09.10.2013, and she came to know about the eviction orders only when the Field Assistant came along with Police Officials to PSP for vacating her, and all of a sudden, they got vacated her and her family members on 15.09.2014 pursuant to the delivery warrant issued in E.P.No.13 of 2014, and thus, respondent No.1 played fraud upon her, hence, prayed to allow the application. 3. After hearing both sides, the application was dismissed by the trial Court stating that there is no explanation and sufficient reason for abnormal delay of 356 days and it cannot be condoned in a routine and mechanical way and there is no justifiable grounds in the petition to condone the abnormal delay of 356 days in preferring the appeal and even, otherwise, the petitioner now became 80 years old and she cannot engage herself personally in any business and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the petition. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed stating that the impugned order of the trial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law and the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner is an old lady and sick which is proved by the Doctor’s certificate and her husband passed away. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed stating that the impugned order of the trial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law and the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner is an old lady and sick which is proved by the Doctor’s certificate and her husband passed away. The trial Court ought to have observed that just because the petitioner goes in a wheel chair with an attendant, she is not diligent enough to pursue the case and there were cogent and valid reasons set out in the affidavit to explain the delay in filing, as such, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court not considered the cause stated by her for condoning the delay and there are fair grounds to condone the delay not only her illness and her husband also passed away, and there is no male member to proceed with the case, as such, delay occurred and it is not necessary to explain day to day delay in each and every case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Judgment of the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. Union of India and Another, (2023) 10 SCC 531 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the present petition as the order is of the year 2013 and after giving ample opportunities only, the trial Court decreed the suit and E.P. was ordered. Moreover, the property got vacated long back in the year 2014. At the time of filing set aside petition, the petitioner was 83 years old and she cannot do any business in future and not only the days or months, it is almost one year delay in filing the appeal and it cannot be condoned in a routine manner, as such, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the petition, as such, requested the Court to dismiss the petition. 8. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, while dealing with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court has to consider only to the extent of cause which is explained by the petitioner for condoning the delay. The reasons for delay are explained by the petitioner that she is an old aged lady and her elder son is in abroad seeking livelihood and her husband passed away during the course of trial, and she is also financially not stable to gather money and to engage counsel. Further, she is also sick during the course of the period due to her old aged ailments. Whereas, the trial Court went into the merits of the case stating that as already she became old, she cannot do any further business. The sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be considered liberally and in each case, they cannot explain day to day delay and is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (supra) while dealing with Section 5 of the Act, the Court has to be liberal: “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice. Therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay, where substantial justice and a technical approach were pitted against each other, a pragmatic approach should be taken with the former being preferred. An application for condonation to be seen in a positive light, the same should be bona fide, based on true and plausible explanations, and should reflect the normal conduct of a common prudent person. 9. In the present case also the petitioner is an old aged lady and she explained her inability financially and also there is no logistic support for her to file an appeal immediately. Therefore, in view of the health condition of the petitioner and also financial ability, the trial Court would have considered the same instead of discussing about the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Therefore, in view of the health condition of the petitioner and also financial ability, the trial Court would have considered the same instead of discussing about the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court is hereby set aside by condoning the delay of 356 days. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions if any, are closed. No costs.