JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the LETTERS PATENT , is directed against the order/judgment dated 22nd February, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No.4268 of 2008 by which the prayer of the appellant has been dismissed.

I.A. No. 12026 of 2022

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 1086 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 12026 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 1086 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 that the appellant was not aware about the disposal of the writ petition, as the same was not informed by his counsel. Thereafter due to surge of COVID-19, pandemic, the appellant being a senior citizen could not able to travel Ranchi in time for engaging a new counsel for filing the present appeal. It is further stated in the interlocutory application that when the situation of COVID-19 becomes normal, in the end of the year 2021, the appellant engaged a new counsel and the present appeal was filed.

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 propositions 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 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.”

In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala , (1997) 7 SCC 556 , the Apex Court while considering a case of