' The appellant, through the instant appeal under section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, has called, in question consolidated judgment dated 9-2-2004 whereby the learned Single Judge in Chamber also dismissed petitioner's constitutional Petition (Writ Petition No.2967 of 2001).
2. Appeal is, admittedly, barred by time, therefore, the appellant has filed the application (C.M. No.2 of 2004) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The impugned judgment was passed on 9-2-2004; the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment on 11-2-2004; which was completed and delivered to the appellant on 20-2-2004, while the present appeal was filed on 11- 4-2004. Even if time consumed for obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment is excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal, the same is still barred by time. This fact has duly been acknowledged by the appellant. The only ground taken in the application. For condonation of delay, as canvassed by the learned counsel, is that "the petitioner has good prima facie case on merits, therefore, limitation is not hurdle in this way". This can hardly be termed and taken as "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is evident from the record that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any sufficient reason, within the parameters of law, for not filing the appeal within the limitation period. The appellant has failed) to make out "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, thus, the application, in hand is dismissed.
3. With the dismissal of the aforenoted application, the appeal is barred by time, thus, we are constrained to hold that the appeal cannot proceed further having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the law. In view whereof, the appeal stands dismissed in limine.