MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER MIANWALI

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.--‑ This petition is barred by 82 days.

2. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that in the first instance there was some confusion as to the date on which the High Court judgment was delivered, namely, whether it was 2‑5‑1975 or 2‑6‑1975. Even when it became clear that the judgment of the High Court was dated the 2nd of June 1975, the petitioner was unable to engage an Advocate‑on- Record for the purpose of filing this petition, as in the meantime he had fallen ill with a heart ailment. He instructed his son to do the needful, but was informed that the matter had already become time‑barred. The petitioner accordingly gave up the matter, but in the third week of September 1975, he found that the matter was not barred by time as the judgment of the High Court was dated 2‑6‑75 and not 2‑5‑75. It is submitted that the delay wars thus caused by the confusion as to the date of the Judgment and the indisposition of the petitioner. In support of this last ground a medical certificate has also been appended with the application showing that the petitioner received medical treatment from 5‑7‑75 to 20‑9‑75. The petition was tiled ors the 29th of September 1975.

3. We regret we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. Each day of the delay beyond the prescribed period bas to be explained, but this has not been done. From the narration of facts bearing on the petitioner's illness, it becomes clear that be was not unable to give instructions for the filing of the present petition in time. We would accordingly dismiss this petition as barred by time.

4. Petition dismissed.