IMPORTANT POINT
The law of limitation is to be strictly enforced, and the burden lies on the appellant to demonstrate sufficient cause for any delay in filing an appeal, which must not be attributed to negligence or lack of bona fides.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5837 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant has been dismissed.

I.A.No.4187 of 2023

2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 175 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.4187 of 2023.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 175 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. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after the judgment was passed on 20.09.2022, the appellant was informed by his lawyer about the judgment. After obtaining the certified copy of the judgment on 04.11.2022, the appellant took legal advice. He was advised to prefer the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant has approached the learned advocate and during preparation of the appeal, the delay was caused in preferring the appeal, which according to the appellant is not intentional and willful.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, has prayed to condone the delay and has submitted that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.”

11. 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 and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”

12. While considering the similar issue, this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, wherein, it has been held as under:

“21.5 (v) Lack o