IMPORTANT POINT
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and sufficient cause must be demonstrated for any delay in filing appeals.

JUDGMENT :

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Since common issues are involved in instant intra-court appeal and the writ petition as such on the prayer made by learned counsel for the parties, the Co-ordinate Bench of this vide order dated 22.12.2023 directed to list both these matters together. Accordingly, the matter has been taken up.

Prayer in LPA No. 324 of 2023

2. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4397 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition was dismissed holding therein that the mother i.e., the petitioner No.1 is itself responsible for not getting the compassionate appointment in view of her likes and dislikes regarding their two sons as on 30.04.2019, compassionate appointment has been given to her second son i.e., respondent No.5, who has not appeared before this Court even after valid service of notice, neither he has relinquished his claim nor the petitioner No.2, though he (petitioner No.2) was not eligible and as such, at this juncture, no direction can be given to consider the case of the petitioner No.2.

3. This Court before entering into the merit of the matter, thinks it fit and proper to decide the limitation petition filed in L.P.A. No. 324 of 2023.

I.A. No. 11359 of 2023 in LPA No. 324 of 2023

4. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 196 days, therefore, the instant Interlocutory Applications has been filed for condoning the aforesaid delay.

5. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeals have been filed after inordinate delay of 196 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.

6. Grounds taken in the Interlocutory Application:

7. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application, appellant no. 1 is an old poor lady whereas appellant no. 2 is jobless they could not arrange the required money for filing of the instant appeal. Only after arranging the money, the appellants visited the counsel on 27.05.2023 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 02.06.2023.

8. It has been submitted that delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to various reasons beyond the control of the appellants and if the delay is not condoned the appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on delay condonation application, however, 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.

12. 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