1. ' ZAHID HAMID, J.---At the very outset the learned Counsel for respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the appeal which was preferred before the lower Court was barred by time.
2. ' Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Impugned Order was passed on 17-11-2007 and the application for grant of certified copy was made on 21-11-2007 thereafter the certified copy was delivered on 27-11-2007. In this manner 7 days were consumed in preparing the certified copy. The learned counsel has further stated that since the Impugned Order was passed on 17-11-2007 which was Saturday and the following day being Sunday the Limitation would not start running from Sunday but rather on Monday i.e. From 19-11-2007.
3. If the time is computed from 18-11-2007 the appeal ought to have been filed on 24-12-2007 which could be the last day for filing appeal within the Limitation period of 30 days. However on this day the appeal was not filed where after winter vacations commenced. The A courts were to reopen on 3-1-2008 when an urgent application supported with application and affidavit of the learned Counsel was filed on 1-1-2008 for entertaining the appeal during winter vacations.
4. The learned counsel has argued that he had filed his affidavit along with application for condonation of delay in which he had disclosed his mistake in computation of time. I have gone through such affidavit but I do not find any such reason having been assigned by the learned counsel for appellant. On the contrary it has been stated in the said affidavit that 1st of January 2009 was the last day on which the appeal was being preferred as a measure of abundant caution, This reason was advanced only for the purpose of urgent application to prefer the appeal during vacations. It did not contain any statement that the learned counsel by mistake computed the, period of limitation as a result of which the appeal had become time barred.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Muhammad A'zeem and another v.
6. Muhammad Nawaz (PLD 1961 W.P. Lahore 137) which was on the difficulties based on the confusion on selection of proper forum of appeal rendering the right of appeal to be extinguished by efflux of Limitation. He has next relied on the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Ahmed Bux (1991 SCM R 716) to emphasize that when the period of Limitation expires on a day which is followed by a vacation or vacations then the day on which the vacation or vacations fall is/are to be excluded in computation of period of limitation. He has further relied on Shafqat Hussain Shah v. Sakina Begum and others (1987 CLC 664) which only explained as to what was: meant by the expansion, "time requisite to obtain the copies." This expression has been dilated upon to include the day on which the application of the copy is made and the following days up to the day on which the copy is obtained excluding both the first and the last day. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on Pakistan and another v. Muhammad Hedayet Ullah (PLP 1961 Dacca 29) wherein delay of .One day in filing appeal due to lawyer's bona fide mistake was condoned and it was quoted and observed as follows:- ' In Highton v. Treherne, the Court, however, clearly pointed out: "But where there has been a bona fide mistake not through negligence nor through misconduct nor through want of reasonable skill, but such as a skilled person might make, I would very much dislike the idea that the rights of the client should be thereby forfeited."
7. ' In the instant case, there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal. It was due to the lawyer's bona fide mistake in calculating the last date of filing the appeal. Hence, in our opinion, the learned judge was not justified in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay of one day in filing the appeal."
8. In the last cited case, ibid there was delay of one day in filing the appeal and it was found that it was due to Lawyer's bona fide mistake for calculating the last day of filing the appeal, the condonation of delay was accepted for such mistake was bona fide and not occasioned due to negligence nor on account of any misconduct or want of reasonable skill on the part of learned counsel.
9. ' In the instant matter the affidavit filed in support of application under section 5 does not disclose that it was due to mistake that the appeal had become time barred and was being preferred after expiry of the Limitation period. On the bare reading of the affidavit it would be found that it was stressed upon that 1st of January 2009 was the last day on which the appeal could be filed and therefore it should be admitted during winter vacations which was to last up to 2nd of January 2009.
10. ' There is admittedly a delay of one day in filing the appeal and instead of preferring the same on 24-12-2008 it was filed on 1-1-2009. Admittedly the time started to run from 18-11-2007 which was Sunday and the learned counsel's contention that he was entitled to allowance for the Sunday is neither cogent or tenable nor favoured by any law.
11. ' The learned Lower Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was time barred and I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with such findings in facts and circumstances narrated above. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.