Judgment Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1120 days in filing the writ appeal against the order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13546 of 2007. 2. The writ court passed an order on 22.08.2011 on the writ petition filed by the respondent herein directing the third petitioner herein to regularise the service of the respondent herein from the date of his appointment as Watchman from 01.04.1983 with all consequential service and monetary benefits and the first petitioner herein was also directed to grant selection grade and special grade benefits if he was entitled to and to pay arrears. 3. The instant application has been filed on the following ground : The copy of the order was received by the petitioners on 12.09.2011. Thereafter, a letter was addressed to the District Educational Officer, Chengalpattu on 08.11.2011 to get legal opinion to file a writ appeal from the Special Government Pleader (Education). The District Educational Officer, Chengalpattu has sent a letter to the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) on 09.12.2011 seeking legal opinion. Thereafter, the learned Government Pleader has given his opinion on 12.12.2011 stating that this is not a fit case for filing an appeal. The same was also reported to the Directorate of School Education, who has reported it to the Principal Secretary, School Education Department on 12.02.2013. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary had advised to approach the Additional Advocate General for getting revised legal opinion. Thereafter, the department was advised to approach the learned Advocate General for obtaining opinion. The learned Advocate General has given his opinion on 23.9.2014 and thereafter, the writ appeal has been filed with an application for condonation of delay of 1120 days. 4. The object of prescribing the time limit for preferring an appeal to the higher forum is to set the controversy at rest. Secondly, rights which accrued in favour of the successful party cannot be jeopardized by filing the appeal with an inordinate delay. The petitioners seeking condonation of delay must specify that no right has accrued in favour of the other party after the specified limitation period is over and the other party will not be prejudiced in any manner. The petitioners have also not established that the delay was bona fide. The petitioners seeking condonation of delay must specify that no right has accrued in favour of the other party after the specified limitation period is over and the other party will not be prejudiced in any manner. The petitioners have also not established that the delay was bona fide. Thus, we are not satisfied with the reasons stated by the petitioner as sufficient and justifiable. 5. The Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others has observed that if there is an inordinate delay, strict approach for condonation of delay has to be followed. 6. In view of the foregoings, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. However, we make it clear that the rejection of this application may not be cited as a precedent on the question of law to be decided in the appropriate case. Consequently, the writ appeal is rejected at the SR stage itself.