JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. CONCR No. 46/2018 1. The State has filed the present condonation application in the application seeking leave to file acquittal appeal on the grounds that the accompanying appeal has been filed by the appellant/applicant against the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Doda in case titled 'State v. Susheetal Abrol' for the offence under Section 420-A RPC, in FIR No. 54/2011, registered at Police Station, Thathri, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the offence, he has been charged. 2. It is stated in the application that after the judgment was pronounced, an application for issuance of certified copy of the judgment was filed on 13.11.2017, which was issued on 16.11.2017. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the Law Department for the grant of sanction letter. It is also stated that the matter was considered in the Law Department at various levels and the sanction was accorded for filing appeal vide Govt. Order No. 2136-LD (ACQ) of 2017, dated 14.06.2017. At the relevant time, the Civil Secretariat was at Srinagar, as such, the sanction was received in the office of the learned Advocate General on 22.06.2017. It is further stated that there was vacations in the High Court from 10th June to 2nd July 2017 and the counsel could not be contacted during vacations. Immediately after the court reopened, the sanction was provided to the counsel, thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda was contacted for providing requisite assistance for filing an appeal. The requisite information was collected and sent to Jammu, however, the counsel for the applicant was out of the country on leave and immediately on her resuming work on 29.08.2017, the information was provided to her. It is also contended that after getting the requisite information, an appeal was drafted, however, the same got misplaced in the office of the counsel due to change in staff. On this fact coming to light, the appeal was drafted afresh and sent to Doda for signatures which is thereafter being filed without any further delay. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. It, therefore, prayed that the delay of 425 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. It, therefore, prayed that the delay of 425 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. From the perusal of impugned judgment, it is evident that accused has been acquitted on 22.02.2017; sanction for filing appeal has been granted on 14.06.2017, after about four months. But present petition has been filed on 26.07.2018, after more than one year; so total delay in filing the appeal is 425 days. 5. Rules of limitation are prima facie rules of procedure and do not create any rights in favour of any person nor do they define or create cause of action but simply prescribe that the remedy could be exercised only upto a certain period and not beyond it. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not to be liberally construed to such an extent that the rules are rendered in consequential and reduced to a 'dead provision' on the State book. The Rules of Limitation are not superfluous or vestigial but are to be interpreted in a meaningful manner so as to save the system from anarchy. Why should there be a time frame prescribed under law for a legal remedy? Law of Limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy. Time is precious and the wasted time would never resist. So, a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead of ending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. It is enshrined in maxim, "Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigant). Every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time. The Rules of Limitation are not superfluous or vestigial but are to be interpreted in a meaningful manner, so as to save the system from anarchy. Although certain latitude must be given state in filing appeal that does not mean that law of limitation in filing the appeal shall be become redundant or superfluous. Law is also clear each day after limitation time, is required to be explained by cogent means. It cannot be set aside on flimsy grounds and at the wish of applicant who remained all along negligent. 6. Law is also clear each day after limitation time, is required to be explained by cogent means. It cannot be set aside on flimsy grounds and at the wish of applicant who remained all along negligent. 6. In present case, so far as the averments made in the application are concerned, it may be said that the application has been drafted in a most casual manner and absolutely no details have been given for the reasons as to why a delay of 425 days had occurred. Even if this Court wanted to show indulgence to the appellant, being a Government body, it finds it difficult to help the appellant as it has been guilty of gross negligence. No date, on which the different officers dealt with the file, has been given; there is a gross negligence on the part of the department. There is so much of gross negligence on the part of the appellant that even the word 'sufficient cause' has not been used by them in the application. After the expiry of period of limitation a vested right is created in a party which cannot be defeated easily. 7. Applicant has miserably failed to satisfy the court with regard to delay in filing the application seeking leave to appeal. Even after getting the permission from Law department to file petition on 14.06.2017, the State remained silent for about more than one year in filing the present petition and filed present application on flimsy grounds. Court cannot come to rescue of a litigant who always remained careless. No sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the delay. 8. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and resultantly the application seeking leave to file appeal is also dismissed as barred by time.