Limitation period runs from original order; typographical correction does not restart time for appeal.

Limitation for filing the appeal ran from the date the impugned order was originally pronounced, because a later order correcting a typographical error in the recorded year did not substantively modify, alter, or merge with that decision. The correction order therefore did not restart or extend limitation. As the appeal was filed beyond the statutory condonable period, and no sufficient ground for condonation was shown, the delay was held not condonable and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period for filing the appeal commenced from the date of pronouncement of the original order or from the later order correcting a typographical error in the date, and whether the delay beyond the condonable period could be excused.

Analysis: The limitation period was held to run from the date on which the impugned order was pronounced. The later order merely corrected an inadvertent typographical error in the recorded year of the order and did not modify, alter, or merge the original decision. Since the correction order did not amount to a substantive modification, it did not extend or restart limitation. The appeal was therefore filed beyond the statutory condonable period, and no sufficient ground for condonation was made out.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the application was rejected.

---