The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown, with strict adherence to the law of limitation.

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 03.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2532 of 2020 by which the writ petition has been allowed.

I.A. No. 6331 of 2024:

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since as per the office note dated 09.05.2024, there is delay of 155 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 6331 of 2024 has been filed for condoning the delay.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 155 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 03.11.2023 having being passed in W.P.(S) No. 2532 of 2020, the appellant as well her counsel was having no knowledge about the dismissal of order and on 30.03.2024 the counsel has got knowledge about the same.

Thereafter, the appellant applied for obtaining the Certified Copy of judgment dated 03.11.2023 and subsequently obtained the same on 27.04.2024.

The appellant was advised by her counsel to file appeal

Therefore, the appellant immediately came to Ranchi and contacted the counsel on 12.04.2024 and subsequently the memo of appeal was drafted and the same was filed before the Hon’ble High Court on 26.04.2024.

The appellant had to come to Ranchi from Garhwa which is 400 km of distance and hence commutation from there was difficult for her and moreover due to paucity of money there has been delay on filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Thereafter, the LPA along with the instant interlocutory application for condonation of delay has been 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 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 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 Co