'C.M. No,412-P of 2013.
' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Through instant application the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay in resubmitting the appeal, which could not be filed within time prescribed as per office direction.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant filed titled appeal on 7-11-2012 against the Judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge-III Nowshera dated 20-9-2012. The perusal of record reveals that on the day of filing of appeal i.e, 7-11-2012 the same was returned to the appellant with some objections and it was directed to be re-submitted the same on or before 30-11-2012. The appellant re-submitted the same on 22-12-2012, but, again it was returned with certain objections to the learned counsel for the appellant with the direction to re-file the same on or before 7-1-2013.
This appeal was again re-submitted on 22-1-2013, but despite previous direction, no court-fee was affixed, therefore, it was again returned to do the needful and re-submit the same on or before 6- 2-2013. The appellant re-submitted the appeal on 12-11-2013, after a delay of more then 9 months of the date of re-submission, hence seeks condonation of delay through instant application.
3. The appellant was first given date for re-submission as 30-11-2012 and he re-filed the same on 22-1-2013 i.e, after passing of almost two months of date of re-submission, however, the office without taking any action again directed the appellant to remove the objections and further granted a time of re-submission as 6-2-2013, The petitioner despite chance given by the office did not avail the remedy of resubmission within the stipulated period. The ground taken in the instant application for condonation of delay is not sufficient under the circumstances to condone the delay on the part of appellant. The application for condonation is not supported by affidavit of the appellant.
4. It is well settled by now that law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. It was incumbent upon the appellant that he should have resubmitted the appeal immediately after removal of the objection and that too within time prescribed by the office. In case of failure, the appeal deserves dismissal. Reliance may be placed on the Judgments of Hon'ble apex Court passed in case of Collector Land Acquisition, Abbottabad and others v. Fazal Rehman and others 2009 SCM R 767 and Mrs. Akram Yaseen and others v. Aasif Yaseen and others 2013 SCM R 1099.
5. Having examined the record, we are of the opinion that appellant have not been able to make out a case for condonation of delay and failed to satisfy us that why it took 9 months to re-submit the appeal.
In view of the peculiar circumstances of instant case, this application for condonation is dismissed.
R.F.A No,321-P/2013:---Despite service neither the appellant nor his counsel is in attendance. The case called several times and it is by now 01:30 p.m. But no one turned up, which depicts lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Since application for condonation of delay has been turned down on merits, therefore, this appeal also stands dismissed, being time barred.