' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Petitioner's FAO No, 10 of 2008 pending on the file of defunct Islamabad High Court has been dismissed on 23rd April, 2009. An application for re- admission of the appeal in terms of Order XLI, Rule 19 read with section 151, C.P.C. Was filed on 18th November, 2009 with the explanation that petitioner had no knowledge about the fixation of the case before the learned High Court on 23rd April, 2009 and such knowledge was gained on 23rd October, 2009, therefore, application for obtaining certified copy of the order of dismissal of appeal dated 23rd October, 2009 was filed which was supplied on 28th October, 2009, as such appeal be restored. Learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 26th March, 2010 declined to re- admit the appeal as such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it was the negligence of learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, instead of penalizing the petitioner-Company matter be disposed of on merits in view of judgment reported in the case of Seth Shivrattan G. Mohatta and another v. Messrs Mohammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. (PLD 1965 SC 669).
3. We have heard learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment carefully.
4. It is an admitted position that in the Cause List published for 23rd April, 2009 the names of the counsel of petitioner i,e,, Kh. Ahmed Tariq Rahim, Khawaja Ahmad Hussain were duly printed but unfortunately, no one amongst them appeared before the court inasmuch as after the dismissal of appeal in default no effort was made to enquire about the fate of the case. The learned High Court had also taken note of this aspect of the .Case comprehensively. In addition to it, on coming to know about the dismissal of the appeal and after obtained certified copy of order on 28th October, 2009 but thereafter they kept quiet for another 20 days as the application for re-admission of the appeal was filed after 20 days on 18th November, 2009 without offering delay of each day for not approaching the court within period of thirty days as stipulated under the Limitation Act. It is also important to note that on 23rd April, 2009 the case was repeatedly called twice by the Court firstly; at 8-45 a.m. Followed by second call on at 10-30 a.m., therefore, the learned High Court had no option but to dismiss the appeal. Facts noted hereinbefore reveals that the petitioner had not been pursuing the remedy diligently as no immediate steps were taken for getting the appeal re- admitted after obtaining the certified copy on 28th October, 2009. As far as the judgment learned counsel relied by learned counsel, same is distinguishable on facts. It is also well settled that so far the limitation concerned it creates right in favour of the other side and law always favours those who are vigilant and not those who are negligent in pursuing their remedy, therefore we are of the considered opinion, that no exception can be taken against the order of the learned High Court.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave declined.