1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is barred by 21 days. In the application filed for condonation of the delay it is submitted that after the receipt of the copies of the judgment of the High Court by the petitioner, they consulted some local lawyers in Jhang including S. Akhlaq Hussain, a senior civil lawyer, and Mr. Muhammad Rafique Nasim, Advocate, to inquire as to the period of limitation prescribed for filing a petition for special leave to appeal in this Court. The said counsel are reported to have stated that the period of limitation for this purpose was ninety days and for giving this advice they consulted a "Qanuni Diary" of 1977. The delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal, it is said, occurred on account of the aforesaid erroneous advice given by the two Jhang lawyers with regard to the period of limitation.
2. After hearing Sh. Ghias Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not think that any case has been made out for condonation of delay. The advice pleaded in excuse of the delay was allegedly tendered by some lawyers of hang who did not consult any standard work on law and limited their research to some "Qanuni Diary". Moreover, no certificate or affidavit of the senior counsel, namely S. Akhlaq Hussain, has been filed and the only certificate issued by Mr. Muhammad Rafique Nasim, which has been brought to our attention, is not at all helpful to the petitioners. The petitioners do not appear to have been acting with due diligence in moving the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it is obvious that they would have consulted Advocates of this Court instead of District Court's lawyers whose exertions were confined to looking at the Qanuni Diary on which counsel note dates of hearing of their cases. Even otherwise, ignorance of law being no excuse, the plea that the Advocates at Jhang had wrongly advised the petitioners on the question of the period of limitation cannot be considered to be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
3. By the efflux of time a valuable right has, in the meanwhile, accrued to the respondents which cannot be put into jeopardy on the basis of the flimsy explanation advanced by the petitioners in support of their plea for condonation of delay. The prayer for condonation of delay, therefore, fails.
4. This petition, being barred by time, is accordingly dismissed.