The court ruled that an inordinate delay in filing an appeal requires a sufficient explanation, and negligence or lack of bona fides can lead to dismissal of the application for condonation.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1488 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been allowed directing the respondent-CCL to consider the case of the petitioner’s daughter for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased brother and pass appropriate order for appointing her on compassionate ground.

2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 863 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.8684 of 2024.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 863 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 that the order which has been passed by learned Single Judge has been complied with by passing reasoned order dated 29.04.2023 but when the said order was brought to the notice of the contempt Court by filing show cause, the learned Contempt Court did not accept and consider it to be compliance of the order passed by the writ Court in W.P. (S) No.1488 of 2021 and directed the appellant-authority to comply with the order passed by the writ Court and only thereafter, the present intra-court appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that considering the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the delay as pointed out by the office is not intentional and deliberate and if the delay is not condoned the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

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.

9. 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.”

10. 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