MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Seeking leave against the impugned judgment dated 15-4-2008 dismissing petitioner's application for restoration of his R.S.A. No, 27 of 1993 dismissed for non- prosecution, the following facts were admitted by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that;
(i) RSA No, 27 of 1993 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22-6-2006.
(ii) Application for restoration thereto was made after the period of limitation on 12-4-2008 with a delay of about one year and ten months.
(iii) Application for restoration was accompanied with an application for the condontion of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein date and day-wise explanation for the delay was not particularized.
2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, endeavoured to strenuously argue that the limitation as well as the condonation are matters of technicalities which should be disregarded by the Courts while administering justice. He has referred to the case of "Anwar Khan v. Fazal Manan"
(2010 SCM R 973).
3. Having heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court, we do not subscribe to his view. The above judgment does not apply to IB the facts of the present case where the petitioner had been rr admittedly negligent and indolent in prosecuting his second appeal, filing of the application for restoration and failing to properly explain his delay. The petitioner also failed to particularize his application to seek condonation of delay. He neither raised any plausible ground nor did he disclose the date and day of his knowledge of the dismissal of the RSA. C Such an indolence cultivates a right in the opposite party which, as repeatedly held by this Court, should not be lightly dislocated to maintain judicial balance.
4 In view thereof, this petition has no merit and is dismissed.