The judgment emphasizes the importance of showing sufficient cause for condoning delay and the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to ensure substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4723 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition filed challenging the order dated 06.11.2013, by which the compassionate ground of the writ petitioner has been turned down on the ground that the writ petitioner is the married daughter and is not a dependant as per the Scheme, has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

I.A. No. 10226 of 2022:

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 1577 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 10226 of 2022 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 1577 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-petitioner 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 at paragraphs-4 & 5 is that the husband of the appellant is permanent handicapped person and works as a compounder in an eye hospital and is the sole bread earner.

The ground has also been taken that the appellant is a resident of Arwal, Bihar and the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in the writ petition neither guided nor took any step for filing the appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, as such, delay of 1577 days has occurred in filing the instant appeal as also the ground of COVID-19 has been taken.

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 is 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 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 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.”

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 paragra