C.M. No,243-C of 2007 ' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 seeking condonation of delay for filing C.M. No,242-C of 2007 for restoration of dismissal of the Civil Revision No,15 of 2006 for non-prosecution.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he proceeded to Karachi to attend the Urs of his Pir (Hazoor Qalander Baba Auliya Rahmatullah Alaia), thereafter, he had two petitions (C.P.
No,1712 of 2004 and C.P.No,1713 of 2004) fixed before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, at Islamabad on 6-2-2007 and therefore, could not appear in this Court on 6-2-2007. He also stated that he has no clerk in his office, therefore, he was not informed of the fixation of the petition in this Court, he received no cause list, therefore, absence was not deliberate or intentional, he, therefore seeks condonation of delay for 8 days for filing the petition belatedly.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the application is patently barred by time, there is no adequate explanation for delay in filing the application, law requires that delay of each day has to be explained which has not been done, therefore, petition warrants no indulgence.
4. Heard.
5. The petition came up for hearing on 13-1-2006 and pre-admission notices were issued to the respondents and interim relief was also granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was partly heard on 4-9-2006, proceedings were adjourned to 6-9-2006, none appeared and they were adjourned to 17-11-2006. On this date, Malik Shahid Iqbal Aw an, Advocate, appeared and sought adjournment, pleading that the original counsel for the petitioner was not available. The proceedings were again agreed for 6-2-2007 and dismissed for non-prosecution on this date.
6. The counsel proceeded to Karachi on 27-1-2007 and it appears thereafter he went to the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan at Islamabad, and appeared in C.Ps. Nos.1712 of 2004 and 1713 of 2004 on 6-2-2007. On this date, the proceedings were dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court, normally this is sufficient cause to allow application for restoration. But unfortunately no date has been mentioned as and when the petitioner discovered dismissal of the instant petition, likewise there is no explanation, as to why the application for restoration was not filed within the period of limitation, and above all there is not a word to explain, the admitted delay of eight days.
The ( petitioner is required to explain delay of each day, as a valuable right accrues to the other party, thus balance has to be struck, on this benchmark, the scale leans in favour of the respondent. Therefore, petition is dismissed.
C.M.No,242-C of 2007.
' For the reason stated in the C.M.No,243-C/2007, this application too is dismissed, being barred by afflux of time.