UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ground for condonation of delay in filing this petition is firstly that the petitioner No. 1 is an aged person and secondly that he was ill at the time of passing of the impugned judgment dated 2.9.2004 and therefore could not file the present petition within time.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner No. 1 applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 4.12.2004 two days beyond the limitation period. He received certified copy of the judgment on 7.12.2004 and thereafter delayed the filing of the present revision petition for a period of 23 days. The delay occasioned after the receipt of certified copies is unexplained and fatal for the petition. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Mst.
Sirajun Munira v. Pakistan through Assistant Deputy Dirctor General (Admn.), Islamabad (1998 SCM R 785) requiring each day to be explained fully for seeking condonation thereof. In any event he submits that the medical prescriptions placed on record show that petitioner No. 1 was ill during the months of August, 2004 and September, 2004 and not during the relevant period in December, 2004 when the critical delay occurred in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to show any document or otherwise given an explanation for the delay occasioned in non- filing this petition after receipt of the certified copies of the impugned order. Even otherwise, the- two prescriptions on record fail to promote the petitioner's case. Accordingly the inescapable conclusion is that this revision petition is time-barred and is therefore dismissed.
Civil .