1974 PLP 423 (SCMR)

Respondents Nos. 1 (ii), 2 (i) to 2 (iii) and 3 : Ex parse. Date of hearing : 5th November 1973. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. This is an appeal by special leave of this Court, and it is from the order of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, passed on the 3rd of March 1966, allowing the second appeal of respondent Mst. Bakhat Bibi since dead. The petition for special leave whereupon the leave was obtained had been time barred by 252 days, but the delay was condoned subject to any objection at a later stage. Mr. Masood Akhtar, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing on behalf pf respondent Mst. Bakhat Bibi has now objected to the condonation of the delay on various grounds, and this has necessitated the examination of the question of delay once again. The impugned order was passed on the 3rd of March 1966. The appel lant, however, applied for the certified copy of the order on the 4th of January 1967, i.e., long after the petition for special leave had become barred by time. The copy was ready on the 5th of January 1967, and it was taken delivery of on the same day. The appellant's explanation for this long delay is that he had twice approached his counsel engaged to represent the former in the letters patent appeal during the second half of 1966 to find out the result of the appeal, but each time his counsel had said that no date had till then been fixed for the hearing of the appeal. It is significant that the appellant mentioned no dates when he had so visited his counsel. The appellant proceeded to say that after a lapse of about 10 months a letter (along with cover) dated the 21st of December 1966, (Annexure `A'), was received from his counsel asking the former to come to Lahore on the 5th of January 1957, alongwith fees, if the appellant desired to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. He reached Lahore on the 4th of January 1957, and received information from his counsel's office that the letters patent appeal had been accepted on the 3rd of March 1966. The appellant does not say whom he met at the follicle of his counsel or who said that the letters patent appeal was accepted on the 3rd of March 1966. The appellant went so far as to suggest that the appellant's case had gone unrepresented before the Letters Patent Bench, although the order of the Letters Patent Bench itself shows that his counsel was present at the hearing. The mere fact that no mention has been made of the appellant's counsel in the order of the Bench is no ground for saying that his counsel fraudulently let him down at the hearing. Except the ipsi dixit of the appellant there is nothing to support the random allegations made against his counsel that the counsel had deliberate ly kept the appellant absolutely in the dark about the result of the letters patent appeal. According to the decision of this Court each day's delay has to be explained for a valuable right accrues in favour of the other party by lapse of time. This the appellant has failed to do. As regards the aforesaid letter purported to have been received from his counsel the letter and the cover are on record. We have examined them and found that although the letter is on the letter‑head of the appellant's counsel, the cover is not his and it is that of Sanito Chemicals (Regd.). The letter is in Urdu and does not appear to bear the signature of the appellant's counsel. The cover is addressed to Mehr Khan, resident of Golewali and yet it does not bear the stamp of Golewali Post Once. This letter is of an extremely suspicious nature and we find it difficult to believe that it was written by the appellant's counsel. So far as the delay between the 5th of January 1967, and the 9th of January 1967, is concerned, no explanation even has been offered or attempted. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court are located in Lahore and, therefore, there was no reasonable ground for not filing the petition for special leave to appeal within a day or two. In any event, the delay of the four days had to be explained, and not left for the Court to guess the reason. We are accordingly of the opinion that the appellant hast failed to explain the long delay satisfactorily: The appeal is accordingly dismissed as time‑barred. Appeal dismissed.