JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the defect(s) as has been pointed out by the office, may be ignored.

2. Considering the same, the defect(s) as has been pointed

3. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the out by the office, is hereby, ignored.

Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 502 of 2017 by which the writ petition has been dismissed.

4. It appears from the order dated 25.04.2023 that while issuing notice upon the party to the proceeding, the appellant had also been directed to serve copy of delay condonation application as well as of Letters Patent Appeal upon the additional party.

5. Accordingly, notice had been issued and in turn thereof, vakalatnama has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants now seeks leave of this Court to allow him to implead writ petitioner no.6, i.e., Damodar Prasad as respondent no.11 to the memo of appeal.

7. However, it is very peculiar that the office, without verifying the fact that the writ petitioner no.6, i.e., Damodar Prasad has not been impleaded as party to the proceeding, has issued notice to him.

8. In view thereof, explanation is required to be called for from the section concerned. Accordingly, learned Registrar General is directed to call for explanation from the concerned section.

I.A. No. 2872 of 2023:

9. This Court, considering the order dated 25.04.2023 as also taking into consideration that the vakalatnama has already been accepted on issuance of notice upon the writ petitioner no.6, i.e., Damodar Prasad, is of the view that the leave as sought for the learned counsel for the appellants for impleadment of the said writ petitioner no.6, is hereby, allowed so as to avoid delay in disposal of the appeal.

10. In view thereof, let the necessary addition be made in course of the day.

11. In consequence thereof, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 6872 of 2022:

12. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 556 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 6872 of 2022 has been filed for condoning such delay.

13. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 556 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit

14. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned by allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient.

15. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application at paragraphs 5 & 6 is that after the judgment having being delivered on 06.08.2018, some time had been taken to arrange for the related documents as also the appellants are poor men so they could not arrange for money for filing of the case. Thereafter, after arranging necessary documents and money, appellants came to Ranchi on 05.02.2022 and contacted the counsel for filing the appeal and thereafter, the appeal had been drafted and affidavited on 10.02.2022 due to which the delay of 556 has occurred in filing the instant appeal.

16. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.

17. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before