IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.247 of 2025 Prasanata Kumar Sahoo …. Appellant Represented by Adv.- Mr. Dr. P. Chuli, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Respondents Represented by Adv.- Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER 11.09.2025 FAO Nos.247 of 2025 & I.A No.454 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the COVID-19 had intervened and that there were some communication gap between the client and the counsel. He also tells the Court that in more or less similar circumstances delay is already condoned, though it was more than thousand days, when the State had filed the recall application. Learned AGA, opposed the same. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers along with the application, this Court declines to entertain the application, inasmuch as delay is enormous and the explanation Order No. 01. offered is not plausible. Salmond on Jurisprudence, by P.J. Fitzerald’ in 12th Edition says that law of limitation is a law of repose & peace and that stale matters should not be entertained by the Courts. This statement by the jurist is full of wisdom and therefore, has to be respected. In the above circumstances, the application in I.A. No.454 of 2025 having been rejected, appeal also stands accordingly. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Prasanta