The court emphasized that procedural delays and lack of bona fides do not justify condoning significant delays in filing appeals, reinforcing the importance of adhering to limitation laws.

JUDGMENT :

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.:

The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 22.11.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 115 of 2018, by which the writ petition has been allowed.

I.A. No. 11709 of 2023:

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since as per the office note dated 25.07.2024, there is delay of 355 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 11709 of 2023 has been filed for condoning such delay.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra- court appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 355 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-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 is that after the order dated 22.11.2022 having being passed in W.P.(S) No. 115 of 2018, was communicated by an application of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) dated 04.04.2023 which was received by the appellants on 20.04.2023.

6. Thereafter, the appellants forwarded the matter to the Legal Department for consideration. The legal department examined the matter and forwarded the same to the Personnel and Industrial Relations Department to review the matter and thereafter the file was placed before the Competent Authority for its consideration and on 22.08.2023 approval has been granted to prefer intra court appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench.

7. Later on, the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment dated 22.11.2022 which was received on 20.09.2023 and the appellant by letter dated 28.09.2023 referred the matter to the Advocate for filing memo of appeal before the Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the advocate for the appellants sought for records of W.P.(S) No. 115 of 2018 and accordingly the same was collected and forwarded to the Advocate concern for filing the memo of appeal. During the Dussehra vacation, draft of appeal was prepared and the same was placed before the Advocate on the basis of conferences held with the Legal Department.

8. Thereafter, the LPA along with the instant interlocutory application for condonation of delay has been filed.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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