1978 PLP 457 (SCMR)

G. SAFDAR SHAH, . This leave petition, which is meant to impugn the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 18‑4‑1978, arises in the following circumstances : The respondent herein, namely, Haji Abdullah Jan, filed against the petitioner an eviction application in the Court of Rent Controller, Peshawar, on the ground of his default in paying the agreed rent. In the written statement filed by him, the petitioner herein denied the claim of the respondent. The case, therefore, proceeded to trial when the petitioner summoned a witness from the Settlement Department but on the date fixed by the Court the witness concerned failed to bring the departmental record and consequently the learned Rent Controller adjourned the case to 27‑10‑1975 on the condition that the petitioner would pay to the respondent Rs. 20 as costs. Being aggrieved of the said order, however, the petitioner filed in the Court of District Judge, Peshawar, an application praying therein for the transfer of his case from the Court of the learned Rent Controller to another Court for disposal. On this application the learned District Judge asked for the comments of the learned Rent Controller, without staying the proceedings. Therefore, when the case came up before the learned Rent Controller on 27‑10‑1975, the petitioner was found absent and consequently an ex parte order was passed against him allowing the eviction application of the petitioner. Against the said order the petitioner filed before the Rent Controller an application seeking the setting aside of the said ex parte order but this application was dismissed. After the dismissal of his said application he went in appeal to the Court of District Judge but his appeal was dismissed as barred by time. Finally he filed in the High Court Second Appeal but the same also was dismissed as barred by time, It is in this background that the petitioner has come up to this Court praying for leave to appeal against the impugned order of the High Court. The admitted position in this case is that this petition is berred by seven days. In order to seek the condonation of the delay in question, the petitioner has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. But what he has alleged therein is that due to the serious illness of one of his relatives he had gone over to the village to attend him and that was why he was not able to present this petition within time. There seems to be no force in this allegation. It is well settled that after the efflux of the prescribed period of limitation, the petitioner must explain to the satisfaction of the Court the delay of every day failing which no indulgence could be' shown to him. The petitioner has not only failed to explain the delay of seven days, but the stand taken by him in that behalf is utterly unsatisfactory. In point of fact he seems to have shown no seriousness in pursuing this case at any stage of the proceedings, for when the application of the respondent was finally allowed against him he filed a belated appeal in the Court of, learned District Judge which was dismissed as barred by time. And thereafter his Second Appeal to the High Court was also dismissed for the same reason. In these circumstances, there is no force in this petition, which is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue occupying the suit house for four months, as of date, subject to his paying to the petitioner the agreed rent. He should remember, however, that after the expiry of the said period of four months he would hand over the possession of the suit house to the respondent. Petition dismissed.