The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay, emphasizing the absence of negligence or lack of bona fide motive.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No.2615 of 2017, by which, the writ petition has been allowed directing the respondents to release all consequential benefits to the writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

I.A. No. 369 of 2020

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 826 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 369 of 2020 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 826 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 appellant 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 in the interlocutory application wherein at paragraph nos. 3 to 6 are that W.P.(S) No.2615 of 2017 was allowed vide order dated 05.09.2017 and after coming into the knowledge about the said order, the appellant preferred civil review no.02/2018 on 08.01.2018 and the same was dismissed on 29.06.2018. Against the order dated 29.06.2018 passed in Civil Review No.02/2018, the appellant preferred L.P.A. No.484 of 2018 on 04.09.2018.

It is stated that the relief the appellant is seeking and also for redressal for her grievance, she was supposed to prefer a letters patent against the order dated 05.09.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.2615 of 2017 but she preferred L.P.A. No.484 of 2018 against the order dated 29.06.2018 passed in Civil Review No.02/2018 and prosecuting the same with due diligence.

It is further stated that the moment, appellant came to know that the relief she is seeking cannot be entertained in L.P.A. No.484 of 2018 arising out of Civil Review No.02/2018, as such, she has preferred the instant L.P.A. being L.P.A. No.20 of 2020 before this Court on 10.01.2020 and therefore, the delay of 826 days which has been occurred in filing the appeal may be condoned otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant 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.

The Privy Council in The 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 Lectures, 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 i