A delay in filing a review application is not condoned without a sufficient and bona fide reason, especially when negligence or inaction is evident.

ORDER :

1. The instant civil review has been filed for review the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 346 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the letters patent appeal has been dismissed on limitation.

I.A. No. 12408 of 2024:

2. The instant civil review is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 403 days in preferring the review, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 12408 of 2024 has been filed for condoning such delay.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant civil review has been field after inordinate delay of 403 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 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 grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the review, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application at paragraphs-6 & 7 is that the petitioner has no knowledge about the dismissal of LPA No. 346 of 2016 and when she inquired about her case, she came to know about the dismissal of her case.

The ground has also been taken that the appellant then manage the expeses and approached the present counsel and then the instant review application was filed. As such, delay of 403 days has occurred in filing the instant civil review.

6. 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.

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. Vs. 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 Lectures, 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 Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory ex