1974 PLP 108 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑.‑This order shall be read in continuation of this Court's order of the 1st October 1973, which set out the facts, necessary for the disposal of this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that on inquiry, he was informed by the Additional Registrar, Bahawalpur Sub‑Registry, that the impugned judgment was not posted at Bahawalpur Circuit on 6‑5‑1970 or on any subsequent date. Learned counsel also stated that there was no rule or instruction requiring the posting of the judgment at Bahawalpur Circuit in the circumstances of this case and urged that its posting at the High Court's principal seat at Lahore was futile, because it could not by any stretch be considered proper intimation to the petitioners' counsel in R.S.A., who practised at Bahawalpur. In the circumstances, the limitation for special leave according to the learned counsel, started from the date of their (petitioners) knowledge, namely, 23‑6‑1970 and not on 6‑5‑1970, when the impugned judgment was actually announced at Lahore. Therefore, the entire period until 9‑6‑1972 when the petitioners' application for certificate for L. P. A. was dismissed should be excluded.

3. But this is rather an over‑simplification of the petitioners' hopeless case for condonation. The argument overlooks the stark fact that even the application for certificate for L. P. A. was beyond time. It was moved on 6-8‑1970 when the limitation for L. P. A. had already expired even if we were to assume that because of the peculiar circumstances of the case, limitation for the appeal started on 23‑6‑1970. It is pertinent to point out, that an applicant for a certificate is not required to file copy of the judgment along with his application. The petitioners obtained copy of the impugned judgment on 14‑7‑1970, but they did not move the application for certificate until 6‑8‑1970. There is no explanation whatever, as to the period between these two dates.

4. Then the petitioners are faced with the additional fact that their ap plication for certificate for L P. A. was dismissed on 9‑6‑1972, and the instant leave petition was not lodged until 9‑11‑1972, that is to say after five months of the dismissal of application for certificate. There is no explanation for this long delay either. It is well established principle that an applicant for condonation of delay must explain each day's delay after the expiry of normal period of limitation valuable right has accrued to the other party of which it cannot be deprived except for very substantial reasons. There are no such reasons in the instant case, except that the judgment was not initially posted at Bahawalpur Circuit. But that would not excuse the subsequent delays in filing the application for certificate and this petition for special leave. The petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.

5. In the course of hearing of this case, we were struck by the odd fact, that there is no rule or instruction regarding the posting of a judgment in the circumstances of this case, at Bahawalpur Circuit. It seems desirable that this omission be rectified by issuing suitable rule or instruction for the relevant purpose. We understand that the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan has issued instructions for informing the Advocates ordinarily practising in Mufassil towns and appearing in the High Court, by postal service, in addition to the usual posting of the case in the cause list hung it), the Court's premises. This is a salutary practice, which the learned Chief Justice and the Judges of the Lahore High Court may well consider fort adoption for that Court. Petition dismissed.