' Through this I.C.A., order dated 10-3-2005 passed in W.P. No.4756 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge in Chambers has been assailed.
2. Along with the I.C.A. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed as the appeal is admittedly barred by time.
3. It is submitted in the application that the applicant/appellant is a Government employee and did not attend the Court on the date the impugned order was passed; that on 8-4-2005, order of the dismissal came to her knowledge and she became aware about the fate of her writ petition and she immediately applied for copy of the impugned order and this appeal was filed.
4. Arguments have been heard on the application of condonation of delay.
5. It was the duty of the applicant/appellant to be vigilant about her case, merely because she had engaged an Advocate did not mean that she was relieved of her duty to keep herself fully informed about the proceedings of her case. The writ petition was dismissed in presence of learned counsel for the appellant and his failure to intimate her in time regarding the dismissal of her petition, is no ground for condoning the delay. "Jhanda v. Maqbool Hussain and others" (1981 SCM R 126), and "Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others v. Settlement Authorities and 2 others" (1981 SCM R 194) are respectfully relied upon. Needless to add that the learned counsel for the appellant has also not even filed his affidavit to the effect that he conveyed the fate of appellant's writ to her on 8-4-2005.
6. The reasons given in the application do not carry any force, therefore, no ground has been made out for the condonation of delay. The application is rejected.
7. Consequently without going into merits of appeal, the same being barred by time is dismissed in limine.
Appeal and .