' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Collector Land Acquisition, Abbottabad and another, appellants, have filed instant appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against judgment and decree, dated 4-4-2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dismissing appeal of the appellants having been filed beyond the period of limitation.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been mentioned in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo. Of appeal.
3. Raja Niaz Ahmad Rathore, learned Advocate Supreme Court for appellants, vehemently contended that there was sufficient ground for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 but the learned Judge of the High Court exercised jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity culminating in manifest injustice.
4. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment submitting that the appeal was dismissed for valid reasons and impugned judgment is not open to legitimate exception.
5. After hearing both the learned counsel and examining the record on the file, we find that judgment and decree was passed on 16-2-2000 by the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad and appeal was filed on 19-8-2000 before the High Court, which was returned for removal of certain objections with the direction to file the same on or before 1-9-2000. The appeal was resubmitted on 17-4-2002.
Ground for condemnation of delay mentioned was that clerk of the counsel for the appellants did not bring this fact to his knowledge and that later the counsel came to know that the file was lying on the record of the disposed of cases which was procured on 3-4-2003. We find that application for condemnation of delay was deficient in many respects. Delay from 3-4-2000 to 10-6-2000 was not counted for. It was also for the appellants to have remained in contact with their counsel to ascertain the result of their appeal which was not done in this case. The High Court has rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by time.
6. It may be mentioned here that appeal before this Court is also barred by 27 days and no plausible explanation has been furnished for delay.
7. In the circumstances, finding no illegality or irregularity in impugned judgment calling interference, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.