' MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.---The titled appeal, by leave of the Court, arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 8th May, 2012, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed.
2. Muhammad Sharif, appellant, herein, instituted a suit for cancellation of the gift-deed executed in favour of Muhammad Zaman in the Court of Civil Judge, Dudyal on 4th November, 2000, on different grounds. He claimed that during the pendency of suit, Muhammad Zaman, defendant, transferred the suit land to defendants-respondents Nos.2 and 3 through gift-deed dated 18th January, 2001. Muhammad Shahban and Muhammad Bashir also filed a suit for possession of the land on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant, herein, is their real uncle and gifted the suit land to their father on 22nd February, 1978. However, they are not in possession of the suit land. A third suit was filed by Muhammad Panno and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others on 1st December, 2011. He challenged the gift-deed dated 18 January, 2001 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3. At the conclusion of the trial, the suits filed by the appellant, herein, and Muhammad Pannu were dismissed, however, the suit filed by Muhammad Shahban for possession of the land was decreed. Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Punnu filed two separate appeals before the Additional District Judge, Dudyal. The Additional District Judge, Dudyal dismissed both the appeals through judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2006. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the said judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge by way of appeal. The learned Chief Justice in the High Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment on 8th May, 2012.
3. At the outset, Ch. Muhammad Sabir, counsel for the respondents, raised preliminary objection that the petition for leave to appeal is time-barred and merits dismissal. The judgment was delivered by the High Court on 8th May, 2012. The petition for leave to appeal has been filed in this Court on 26th September, 2012. The limitation for filing the petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court is 60 days. It is 81 days beyond the period of limitation. The appeal merits dismissal on the sole ground.
4. Ch. Muhammad Reaz Alam, Advocate, while arguing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, submitted that it is correct that the judgment was announced on 8th May, 2012 and petition for leave to appeal has been filed after a delay of 81 days on 26th September, 2012 but the plaintiff- appellant has sufficiently explained the delay in para 2 of the petition for leave to appeal. He submitted that the plaintiff-appellant is a sick and infirm person and his age is 75 years. He was not personally attending the Court. His case was looked after by his counsel, who has not informed him about the judgment. He was under the treatment. When he attained the knowledge of the judgment, he filed an application for obtaining the copy of the judgment through his counsel. The application was moved on 27th July, 2012. The copy of judgment and decree was delivered on 1st August, 2012 but the counsel inadvertently could not apply for copy of decree sheet. He moved an application for obtaining the copy of the decree sheet on 24th September, 2012, which was delivered on 25th September, 2012 and petition for leave to appeal was filed on 26th September, 2012 promptly. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff-appellant remained under treatment in "Rifa General Hospital Dudyal". He referred to a certificate issued by 'Rifa General Hospital', which formed part of the paper book. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff- appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit.
The affidavit has not been controverted by counter affidavit and objections have not been filed, therefore, the facts alleged in the application for condonation of delay are deemed to be admitted correct. Due to illness, the circumstances were beyond the control of the plaintiff-appellant. It is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The learned counsel requested that the inherent powers under Order XLIII, Rules 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, be exercised for doing complete justice.
5. Ch. Muhammad Sabir, Advocate, counsel for the respondents, rebutted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the plaintiff-appellant for condonation of delay. The plaintiff-appellant was indolent. He was not vigilant for prosecuting his case. The learned counsel submitted that he filed objections on the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel referred to a case reported as Muhammad Ishfaque Khan v. Rehman Khan and 11 others [2011 SCR 18].
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The judgment was announced by the High Court on 8th May, 2012 in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The petition for leave to appeal has been filed on 26th September, 2012. The total period from 8th May, 2012 to 26th September, 2012 comes to 141 days. Order XIII, rule 1 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, provides the limitation for petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court as 60 days. The limitation for filing petition for leave to appeal expired on 8th July, 2012. The petition for leave to appeal has been filed 81 days beyond the period of limitation. The appellant claims that he is an old person of 75 years of age. He remained admitted in Hospital. He has relied upon the certificate issued by "Rifa General Hospital, Dudyal" The said certificate is reproduced as under:- "Rifa General Hospital To Whom it May Concern ' It is certified that I have examined Mr. Muhammad Sharif son of Mr. Ghulam Muhammad, resident of village Thara, Tehsil Dadyal District Mirpur (A.K)
' He is suffering from serile osteoporosis and severe backache and is advised complete bed rest for six weeks with effect from 1st May, 2012."
' A perusal of certificate issued by the Dr. Waheed Iqbal, shows that the Doctor has advised him six weeks' rest, w.e.f. 1st May, 2012. The judgment was announced on 8th May, 2012 and the period of six weeks ends on 16th June, 2012. The application for obtaining the copies of the judgment was filed on 27th July, 2012 after one month and 11 days of termination of his rest period. The application for obtaining the copy of the judgment was filed on 27th July, 2012, when the limitation for filing the petition for leave to appeal has already been expired. Had the appellant filed an application within the period of limitation than the period consumed in obtaining the copy of the judgment has to be condoned. The negligence of the appellant is proved from the fact that the copy of the judgment was delivered on 1st August, 2012 and the appeal was filed on 26th September, 2012 after a lapse of one month and 27 days. The conduct of the appellant appears to be that of a negligent person.
Law favours the vigilant and not those, who are ignorant. This Court in a case reported as Muhammad Ishfaque Khan v. Rehman Khan and 11 others [2011 SCR 18] it was observed in para 9 of the judgment as under:- "9. There is another aspect of the case. All litigant public is required to be vigilant and not indolent in prosecuting their cases before a Court of law, be it a small causes Court level. It is admitted legal position time and again approved by the superior Courts that even a discretionary power vested in a Court cannot be exercised in favour of a person who is indolent or negligent and doesn't obey the orders of the Court without sufficient cause or reason. Even if discretionary order of the Court is right of a party, the same is to be watched by performing the part of the duty required from the litigant. One who sleeps over his rights or his duties deserves to be packed out of the Court."
' For condonation of delay, a party has to show sufficient cause. The sufficient cause is such a cause, which is beyond the control of a party. In a case reported as Qurban Ali and another v. The State (PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 104, it was observed in para 9 of the judgment as under:- "9. As to what is or is not sufficient cause for the purposes of a application under section 5 of the Limitation Act it would not be advisable to lay any hard and fast rule. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. What may be sufficient cause in one case may well not be sufficient in another case. In an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is the duty of the party seeking condonation to explain the each day's delay and unless this is done the delay should not be condoned."
' This Court in another case reported as Muhammad Habib Khan v. Nasiri Khatoon and 11 others (2006 SCR 22), it was observed as under:-- "8 Delay can be condoned only if some sufficient cause is furnished by the party seeking the same otherwise law expects due diligence, care and consciousness from the litigating public seeking redressal of their grievances through a legal process. The term 'sufficient cause' is such a case which is beyond the control of a party, therefore, the Courts have not given any premium to a party which is found negligent, indifferent and careless. The Custodian in these circumstances was justified to hold that the remedy availed before him through review petition was bared by limitation."
' The same view was again reiterated in a case reported as Muhammad Aslam and another v.
Muhammad Rashid (2006 SCR 11), in which this Court has held as under:-- "5. In our opinion as the ground taken in the memo of appeal by the respondent was supported by the judgment of District Judge, therefore, perhaps on account of that reason the point of limitation was not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants before the High Court. However, it may be observed that we have no quarrel with the proposition that without crossing the bar of limitation the Courts are not justified to enter into the merits of the case and the delay in limitation can be condoned only if some sufficient cause has been shown in the application seeking condonation of delay "
' Similarly, in another case reported as Fakhar Mahmood v. Mst. Fahmida Begum and 10 others (2004 YLR 3121) it was observed by this Court in para 14 of the judgment as under:- "14. Even otherwise as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present petition for leave to appeal 'is barred by limitation of 7 days and there seems to be no earthly reason for condonation of this delay. It is a settled principle of law that if a petition is barred by limitation, then it is the duty of the party seeking the condonation of delay to explain the delay of each and every day. The judgment of the High Court was announced on 13-3-2004. The petitioner applied for the copy of the judgment and decree of the High Court on 2-4-2004. However, the petitioner was supplied the copy of the judgment but since the decree was not prepared by the office as claimed by the petitioner, the same was delivered to him on 29-5-2004. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the delay of 7 days may be condoned for the aforesaid reasons that the decree had not been prepared in time by the office. Even this argument is not available to the learned counsel for the petitioner because for lodging the petition for leave to appeal under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, what was required of petitioner, was a copy of the judgment sought to be appealed from and copy of the memorandum of appeal or application before the High Court for the purpose of lodging petition for leave to appeal under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules. The copy of decree of the High Court was not a requisite document to be attached along with the memorandum of petition for leave to appeal.
The petitioner for no useful purpose has been striving to get the copy of the decree which was not an essential document for lodging the petition for leave to appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that he has done so with a bona fide mistake, but suffice it to say that the ignorance of law is not excuse."
7. This Court in a number of cases has refused to condone the delay of even one day when no sufficient case was shown by the party. It is not claimed by the appellant that he was not in the knowledge of the judgment. He claimed that he was sick and due to this reason he could not file the appeal within time. The certificate relied upon by the appellant is not helpful to him because in the said certificate, he was advised rest of only six weeks, which expired on 15th June, 2012, he failed to explain the delay after 16th June, 2012 till filing of appeal. The appellant was not vigilant in pursuing the case. No sufficient cause is shown by the appellant. From the perusal of the whole record, the conduct of the appellant appears to be that of a negligent person. The delay can only be condoned if a party is successful in establishing the sufficient cause for filing the suit/appeal beyond the period of limitation. The appeal is hopelessly time-barred and merits dismissal on this ground.
' The result of the above discussion is that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred, it is hereby dismissed with costs.