ORDER : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The appellant has presented this appeal against the order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.A.No.11 of 2010. 2. Since the appeal was filed belatedly, the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In this application, the prayer is for condonation of a delay of 1603 days in filing the appeal. 3. The Registry has noted a defect in the filing of this I.A., pointing out that the delay ought to be shown as 2315 days as against 1603 days shown in the application for condonation of delay. The registry noticed that the period of 715 days covered during Covid-19 is excluded in calculating the days for which condonation is sought. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the above calculation is correct on account of which the Registry has directed the matter to be placed before the court. 4. It is in these circumstances that, this defective appeal is placed before us. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), representing the respondents. 6. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the calculation of the delay as per the application under Section 5 is correct. She relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in re [ 2020 (3) KLT 449 ], Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in re [ (2022) 3 SCC 117 ], Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited [ (2022) 5 SCC 112 ] and that of this Court in Shafeer v. Rahul [ 2023 (1) KLT 366 ]. 7. The judgment of the Apex Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in re [ 2020 (3) KLT 449 ], the first of the orders, was issued by the Apex Court concerning the extension of the period of limitation, consequent to the spread of Covid-19 virus. By this order, the Apex Court ordered that the period of limitation in all proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general laws or special laws whether condoned or not shall stand extended from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by the court. By this order, the Apex Court ordered that the period of limitation in all proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general laws or special laws whether condoned or not shall stand extended from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by the court. So, it is to be noticed that the above orders were issued exercising the power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 8. The judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in re [ (2022) 3 SCC 117 ] was issued by the Apex Court in the wake of the second surge in Covid-19 cases. The Apex Court issued the following directions:- “5.1. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. 5.2. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. 5.3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 9. In the meantime, the Apex Court issued another order in Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (5) KLT online 1105]. In the above case, the question arose as to whether in a case, where the time limit for filing the appeal already expired before the lockdown during 2020, the benefit of the extension order referred to above can be claimed. In the above case, the question arose as to whether in a case, where the time limit for filing the appeal already expired before the lockdown during 2020, the benefit of the extension order referred to above can be claimed. The facts considered by the Apex Court are available in paragraph 17 of the judgment as under:- “17. By virtue of the proviso to Section 421(3), the Appellate Tribunal was empowered to condone the delay upto a period of period of 45 days. This period of 45 days started running from 02.02.2020 and it expired even according to the appellants on 18.03.2020. The appellants did not file the appeal on or before 18.03.2020, but filed it on 20.07.2020. It is relevant to note that the lock down was imposed only on 24.03.2020 and there was no impediment for the appellants to file the appeal on or before 18.03.2020. To overcome this difficulty, the appellants rely upon the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020. This takes us to the second contention of the appellants.” Considering the above issue, the Apex Court found as under:- “19. But we do not think that the appellants can take refuge under the above order. What was extended by the above order of this Court was only “the period of limitation” and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The above order passed by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lock down, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law. It is needless to point out that the law of limitation finds its root in two Latin maxims, one of which is 'Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt' which means that the law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them.” Finding thus it was held that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the Apex Court on 23.03.2020 10. The judgment in Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited [ (2022) 5 SCC 112 ] was rendered by the Apex Court explaining the operation and effect of the orders issued earlier including the two orders referred to above. The Apex Court explained the scope and impact of the earlier directions as under:- “27.1. The judgment in Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited [ (2022) 5 SCC 112 ] was rendered by the Apex Court explaining the operation and effect of the orders issued earlier including the two orders referred to above. The Apex Court explained the scope and impact of the earlier directions as under:- “27.1. In the consciously worded order dated 23.03.2020, this Court, while taking note of the difficulties likely to be faced by the litigants in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/proceedings within the period of limitation, ordered that the period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under general or special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 until further orders. This order was passed in exercise of plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which are complementary to other powers specifically conferred by various statutes. Even if the above referred provisions of CPC had not been stated in specific terms, the general mandate of the order dated 23.03.2020 was to extend the period of limitation provided in any law for the time being in force, irrespective of whether the same was condonable or not, w.e.f. 15.03.2020 and until further orders. 27.4. On 08.03.2021, suggestions were made before this Court about lifting of lock downs and likely return of normalcy and, therefore, this Court considered it proper to dispose of the said suo motu petition with specific directions that while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 would stand excluded. Though the said order dated 08.03.2021 was passed with a belief that the adverse effects of the pandemic were receding and normalcy was returning but, the spread of virus continued and this led to an exponential surge in COVID-19 cases; and to the second wave of pandemic in the country around the months of March-April 2021. In this turn of events, this Court again took up the matter in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 on MA No.665 of 2021, as moved by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and passed the necessary order on 27.04.2021 in revival of the previous orders. 28. In this turn of events, this Court again took up the matter in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 on MA No.665 of 2021, as moved by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and passed the necessary order on 27.04.2021 in revival of the previous orders. 28. As regards the operation and effect of the orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, noticeable it is that even though in the initial order dated 23.03.2020, this Court provided that the period of limitation in all the proceedings, irrespective of that prescribed under general or special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 but, while concluding the matter on 23.09.2021, this Court specifically provided for exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. A look at the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that while extension of prescribed period in relation to an appeal or certain applications has been envisaged under Section 5, the exclusion of time has been provided in the provisions like Sections 12 to 15 thereof. When a particular period is to be excluded in relation to any suit or proceeding, essentially the reason is that such a period is accepted by law to be the one not referable to any indolence on the part of the litigant, but being relatable to either the force of circumstances or other requirements of law (like that of mandatory two months' notice for a suit against the Government). The excluded period, as a necessary consequence, results in enlargement of time, over and above the period prescribed.” 12. With respect to the judgment in Sagufa Ahmed’s case referred to above, the Apex Court explained the position as under:- “33.2. One of the significant facts to be noticed is that the said decision in Sagufa Ahmed case was rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court much before the aforesaid final orders dated 08.03.2021 and 27.09.2021 (sic 27.04.2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 by another three-Judge Bench of this Court. In those final orders, this Court not only provided for the extension of period of limitation but also made it clear that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. In those final orders, this Court not only provided for the extension of period of limitation but also made it clear that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Such proposition of exclusion, which occurred in the later orders, was not before this Court in Sagufa Ahmed, which was decided much earlier i.e. on 18.09.2020.” 13. Thus, the Apex Court, originally ordered that the period of limitation would stand extended. Later, it was provided that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand “excluded”. The Apex Court also referred to the difference between the “extension” and “exclusion” regarding the Limitation Act, 1963. It was thereafter found that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has to be excluded from the purview of limitation. 14. In light of the above, we find that the calculation of delay made by the appellant is correct. The defect noticed by the Registry is overruled. The Registry is directed to number the appeal.