The Court emphasized that sufficient cause for condoning appeal delays must include diligence and bona fides; ignorance of law and financial hardship alone are insufficient grounds for delay beyond the stipulated period.

ORDER:

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.02.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3923 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by refusing to pass any positive direction in favour of the appellant.

I.A. No. 8757 of 2023

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 1224 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 8757 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 1224 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 ground for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned at paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application is that the appellant is an under educated lady and she has no knowledge about the law of limitation and about the appeal. It has further been stated that she is in a belief that her case was dismissed and she has no remedy available and lost all the hopes but later when she discussed about her case with an advocate, he made her aware of the remedy of an appeal and advised her to approach an Advocate at Jharkhand High Court. Thereafter, without making any delay, she approached the Advocate and filed the present appeal.

6. Further, at paragraph – 4 of the interlocutory application it has been mentioned that the appellant is a very poor lady and her father was the only earning member of the family and after his death, they lost all the financial support to sustain their normal life and they approached the Water Resource Department for appointment. As she had lost all hopes and she had no means of earning to sustain her life, therefore she went to Bihar.

7. At paragraph-5, the ground has been taken that the appellant was living in Bihar and after getting advice from the advocate about the remedy of appeal, she immediately rushed to Ranchi and approached an advocate of Jharkhand High court for filing the appeal.

8. At paragraph 6 it has been stated that the appellants collected all records from the office of the advocate and all the necessary documents and handed over the records to the counsel along with the fees for preferring an appeal in the High Court where-after the appeal was drafted and filed, which resulted in delay of about 1224 days in filing the instant appeal.

9. 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.

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 inordina