Art.25---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Equality of citizens---Limitation---condonation of delay---Preferential treatment to government---Scope---No distinction can be drawn between an ordinary litigation and the government institutions in the matter of limitation---Every statute is meant to eliminate the discrimination and government institutions cannot be given preferential status before a court of law---Principles of natural justice are founded on the equality of citizens, which is even guaranteed under Art. 25 of the Constitution---State or government cannot be treated differently unless such privilege is extended through a lawful statute.

S.3---Dismissal of suits, etc instituted after period of limitation---Scope---Party, while seeking condonation of limitation has to explain delay of each and every day as the question of limitation is as important as the jurisdiction of the court---Court in terms of S.3, Limitation Act, 1908 is under bounden duty to take notice of the question of limitation, even if not raised in defence by the contesting party.

S.3---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.12 & Art. 151---Intra Court Appeal---condonation of delay---Exclusion of time spent in obtaining certified copies---Scope---Appellant sought condonation of delay in filing appeal---Record reflected that application for obtaining certified copies was moved after 43 days of the passing of the judgment---Limitation of 20 days provided under Art. 151 Limitation Act, 1908 for filing appeal started running from the date of decree or order passed by the High Court in its original jurisdiction---Time spent in obtaining certified copies of the relevant record was not excludable from the period prescribed for filing Intra Court Appeal---Application for condonation of delay was dismissed.