' On 19-9-2008 when this appeal was taken up for Katcha Peshi the following order was passed:-- "Perusal of case record reveals that initially this appeal was filed by the appellants on 3-10-2007 as appeal under section 100, C.P.C. But later on, it was amended as appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. It seems that the impugned judgment in the appeal was passed on 18-8-2008 and decree was accordingly framed on 31-8-2007, while two days' time was consumed in obtaining its certified true copy (24th and 25th of September, 2007).
' The above factual position is indicative of the fact that this appeal is barred by limitation. Learned counsel is called upon to satisfy this Court on this aspect of this appeal.
' To come up on 23-9- 2008."
2. Today, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance gone through the certified copy of the judgment and decree placed on record by the appellant. It shows that if the period of limitation is computed from the date of signing of decree and the period consumed in obtaining certified true copy of the judgment and the decree i,e, two days is also excluded still the appeal is time-barred by one day. This being the position and considering the fact that section 5 of the Limitation Act is also not applicable to this appeal, having been preferred under a special statute, it is dismissed being time-barred.