The petitioners filed Second Appeal against the respondents, which was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 15-5-2000. They have filed the application in hand on 16-7-2003 for restoration of the said appeal.
2. Mr.. Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicants argued that neither the applicants nor their counsel had any information about the fixation of appeal for 15-5-2000, therefore, they did not appear on the date of hearing. Their absence Was not intentional, but was due to non-service.
3. It was also argued that the appellants came to know about the dismissal order during the execution process, hence they filed the application in hand duly supported by application (C.M.No,350 of 2003) for condonation of delay. Since their absence was not intentional, therefore, the appeal be restored, readmitted and be decided on merits in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate the learned counsel representing the respondents argued that the applicants were not vigilant in pursuing their appeal, which stood dismissed on 15-5-2000, but they filed application for its restoration on 16-7-2003 i,e,, after delay of 3 years 2 months and one day and on plausible explanation for such delay has been mentioned by them.
5. It was also argued that the application for restoration was hopelessly barred by time as the limitation period for restoration under Article 168 of the Limitation Act was 30 days as held in Lal Din v. Deputy Commissioner (1982 SCMR 201).
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The question that requires consideration for disposal of this application is as to whether the application filed by the applicants was in time, if not, its effect. Answer to this question is that the appeal filed by the applicants stood dismissed on 15-5-2000, but they filed application for its re- admission on 16-7-2003 i,e, after delay of 3 years 2 months and one day. No doubt an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the applicants, but it is by now settled law that delay of each day is to be explained for condonation of delay. This was held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Feberation of Pakistan 'v. Jamaluddin and others (1996 SCMR 727), Income Tax Officer v. Shaikh Miran Bakhsh Ltd. And 25 others (1986 SCMR 1255) and by this Court in M.E.O, and another v. Syed Qamoos Khan and 20 others (PLD 2004 Peshawar 40). The plain reading of the application for condonation of delay shows that no plausible explanation for condonation of delay has been mentioned, what to speak of explaining the delay of each day in filing the application for re-admission. Moreover, the applicants had the knowledge of the dismissal of their appeal. As mentioned above, it was on 15-5-2000 that their appeal was dismissed. The decree- holder had filed application for grant of final decree, the record of which shows that on 2-10-2000 the applicants were present before the said Court and .Had filed their written reply to said application. The order-sheets further show that they participated in the proceedings and even Local Commission was appointed with the consent of their counsel vide order dated 12-10-2002.
Final decree in the case was granted on 24-5-2003, the possession of the property in dispute was handed over to the decree- holder on 20-5-2004. The applicants have candidly admitted in para. 3 of their application (C.M.No, 349/03) that they gained the knowledge of the dismissal of their appeal during the execution process but in order to avoid the limitation they failed to mention the actual date on which they gained the knowledge. The application filed by the applicants is hopelessly barred by time, hence dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.