1981 PLP 1145 (SCMR)

S. 5-Condonation of delay-Petitioners not scrutinising cause list vigilantly so as to know date fixed for hearing of their revision petition before High Court-Petitioner's counsel not stating case having not been shown in cause list on day of hearing or his name having not been printed therein-Petitioners having become aware of impugned order of High Court and applied for its copy, same being supplied, and petition before Supreme Court having become time barred by that time, petitioner, held, should have filed petition for leave to appeal almost immediately after receipt of copy but petitioners having taken another two months to file same, delay not explained to call for condonation." Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of bearing : 16th May, 1981. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-According to the office note this petition is barred by 361 days. In explanation of the delay the learned counsel for the petitioners point out that the petitioners had filed a revision petition before the High Court against the order of the trial Court allowing amendment in the plaint. This petition was admitted to a regular hearing and according to the counsel an actual date should, have been fixed and "red card" issued to the parties by the office notifying the date so fixed. No intimation was received and the case was heard on 27-2-1980 on which date neither party was present but the learned Judge himself examined the record and dismissed the revision petition on, merit The petitioner became aware of this order when the trial Court started proceedings on 30.1-1981. The petitioner then applied for a copy of the judgment of the High Court which was delivered on 28-2-1981 and thereafter the appeal was filed in this Court on 23-4-1981. The explanation for the delay is not satisfactory. The petitioners having filed the revision petition should have scrutinised the cause list] vigilantly so as to know the date fixed for its hearing. The learned counsel has not stated before us that the case was not shown .in the cause list on 27-2-1980 or that his name was not printed therein. Even if the explanation of the petitioner be accepted that some notice for actual date should have A been issued it is admitted that the petitioners had become aware of the High j .Court's order dated 30-1-1980 and applied its copy which was supplied on 28-2-1981. The petition before this Court having become time barred by that time they should have filed the petition for. leave to appeal almost] immediately after the receipt of the copy but they took another two months) to file the same, for which delay there is no explanation. There is no force in this petition which is accordingly, dismissed as barred by time. Petition dismissed.