Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The defendants-petitioners have filed this revision petition for setting aside the order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning 58 days delay in filing the appeal and also consequently dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation.
2. In this case, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from forcibly dispossessing him from the land in question measuring 8 kanals situated in village Sabuwal, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. Vide judgment and decree dated May 5, 1998 the said suit was decreed and the defendants-petitioners were restrained from interfering in the possession of the land in question except in due course of law.
3. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning 58 days delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the Clerk of their Advocate told them that he would apply the certified copy of the judgment and decree. When subsequently one of the petitioners, namely, Sukhdev Singh contacted the said Clerk, then he told that the application for obtaining the certified copy was misplaced, therefore, the certified copies could not be obtained. Thereafter, the said petitioner fell ill and he could not apply for certified copy of the judgment and decree. Subsequently, the copies were obtained and immediately thereafter the appeal was filed with application for condonation of delay.
4. The first Appellate Court framed the issue on the said application to the effect whether there was good and sufficient ground to condone the delay in tiling the appeal. After considering the evidence led by the parties on that issue, the Appellate Court dismissed the application after observing that no sufficient ground for condoning the delay has been made out.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam 2001(3) L.J.R. 186 (S.C.), and Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantram Baburao Patil : 2001(132)ELT15(SC) . I am of the opinion that the first Appellate Court should have adopted a very pragmatic approach while dealing with the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the delay was of only 58 days. The hyper-technical approach should not have been adopted by the Court. It is always in the interest of justice that fair opportunity be granted to the parties to contest the suit. 1 am of the opinion that the first Appellate Court has adopted a wrong approach in dealing with the application for condonation of delay.
6. Hence, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.9.2003 is set aside and the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The first Appellate Court is directed to entertain and decide the appeal of the petitioners on merits.