ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4823 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 04.07.2017 by which order of recovery has been passed against the alleged excess payment.

I.A. No. 506 of 2021

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 376 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 506 of 2021 has been filed for condoning such delay.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 376 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.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant 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.

5. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned at paragraph 5 onwards of the interlocutory application is that the after the order being passed by learned Single Judge it took time in getting the certified copy then it was communicated to the concerned department. Thereafter, it without specifying even time frame it has been mentioned that the file moved from one table to another for taking decision to file appeal which took time in taking a decision to file appeal and further it took time in preparing the statement of facts and time was consumed in preparation of documents and typing etc. and finally thereafter appeal has been filed. .

6. 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.

7. 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 entering into the merit of the lis.

8. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351.

9. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that:

“A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law.”

10. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held at paragraph-6 as under:

“6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes an