' IKRA MULLAH KHAN, J.---Through the instant appeal preferred under provisions of section 96 of C.P.C. 1908, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 21-7-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge-VI, Swabi.
2. The briefly stated facts are that respondents Nos. 1 to 6, instituted a civil suit for compensation against the appellant and rest of the respondents wherein, they alleged that one Abdur Rauf son of respondents 1 and 2, broke his hand in its house and was shifted to the private hospital owned and managed by rest of the respondents, whereof appellant carried an operation on the hand of the patient, but due to miscare, lack of professional experience, mismanagement and lack of all other required equipments in this regard, the patient succumbed to its minor injury due to the negligence and lack of professional responsibilities of the appellant and rest of the respondents.
3. The learned trial Court, on the conclusion of trial award a decree in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 against the appellant and rest of the respondents in sum of Rs,5,00,000, being compensation amount to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Rauf aged 9/10 years.
4. The appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the impugned judgment dated 21-7-2012, preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Swabi, who entrusted the said appeal to Additional District Judge-II, Swabi for adjudication.
5. The learned Additional District Judge-II, returned the memorandum of appeal in original to the appellant as the learned Court was not competent to hear an appeal above its pecuniary jurisdiction vide its judgment dated 30-1-2013.
6. The appellant, thereupon has preferred the instant appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21-7-2012, along with an application for condonation of delay on the ground well mentioned therein the body of the application.
7. Admittedly, this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment thereafter a delay of more than 6 months and 20-days, which prima facie seems to be hopelessly time barred and has been filed much after the prescribed period of limitation provided therefor filling such an appeal, within 90-days.
8. As, the appellant has taken the plea, that as the delay was not intentional but was due to proceeding in the improper forum, the delay may be condoned thereunder the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
9. To resolve this proposition of law, that whether, the appellant would be extended the concession provided thereunder the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of the delay in filling the instant appeal, beyond the prescribed period of limitation, fixed for such an appeal before this Court against any order passed by a Civil Judge. It would be not out of contest to reproduce herein below section 14 as,- Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without / jurisdiction.---(1) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal, against the defendant, shall be excluded, where the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any application the time during which the application has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature is unable to entertain it.
' Explanation. I.--In excluding the time during which a former suit or application was pending, the day on which that suit or application was instituted or made, and the day on which the proceeding therein ended, shall both be counted.
' Explanation. II.---For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff or an application resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding.
' Explanation. III.---For the purposes of this section mis-joinder of parties or of cause of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.
10. The period provided therefor such an appeal, is 90-days, and the instant appeal, has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided thereunder the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908.
11. The Court shall not extend a helping hand, to an indolent, as the law favours the vigilant.
12. The apex Court in judgment title as "Nazakat Ali v. WAPDA through Manager and others" (2004 SCM R 145) has held that:- "Exclusion of time spent in seeking before wrong forum, party would not be entitled to condonation of delay, unless he provides that he had been seeking remedy before wrong forum m good faith."
13. The appellant in its application, annexed hereto with the instant appeal, has not disclosed nor relied on any ground that the delay caused in proceeding before the wrong Court was with due diligence and with good faith.
14. The expression "due diligence" and "good faith" appearing in section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 do not figure anywhere in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, however, the condition prescribed in the latter section for its applicability is sufficient cause but what is sufficient cause is not capable of connotation, with exactitude and word differ from case to case. The facts available on the face of record reveals the conduct of the appellant smack of negligence, and the law does not favour those who goes in slumber.
15. It should not be a matter of routine for the Court that each and every such plea, in regard to condonation of delay be accepted, for the simple reason, that adverse party in such a state of affairs has accrued vested right and that should not be taken away, on the simple pretext that the proceeding in the wrong forum be condoned thereunder section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, without vehemently and reasonably, bring on record its good faith and due diligence in filing appeal in a wrong forum with justification and explanation of the cause, which force the appellant or its counsel, in the filing of appeal before a wrong forum.
16. As, the appellant, failed to convince this Court, that the time spent in proceeding before the wrong Court, was a result of misconception of law or facts but was proceeded there under due diligence and with good faith. Reference may be given to the judgment of this Court delivered thereof in case title "Khan Shahzada v. Allied Bank Ltd. (PLJ 2013 Peshawar 222). Therefore, the instant appeal, being hopeless time barred, accordingly dismissed in LIMINE.