' Through present petition, prayer has been made for condonation of seven days delay in preferring service appeal calling in question order dated 24th of August, 2009 whereby representation of applicant-appellant for grant of proforma promotion as Senior Civil Judge was declined by the competent authority.
2. Reasons for delay in filing the appeal have been set out.
' In the case of "Muhammad Malik v. Chairman, Mirpur Development Authority, Mirpur and 9 others"
(1997 CLC 480), undeniably affidavit of counsel for the appellant explaining delay in filing the appeal in the absence of any contrary material to controvert the same was acted upon granting condonation of delay but the settled proposition of law cannot be questioned that each case has to be decided keeping in view its own facts and circumstances.
' In the Report under reference, counsel for the appellant highlighted the reasons for delay in filing of appeal suggesting that there was a mistake of office in issuing wrong copy of order. Perusal of para (6) of the facts of the Report under reference clearly suggests distinguishable facts.
' In view of the matter, the Rule of law would not advance the plea of the applicant.
' In the case of "Hassan Abbas v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge and 2 others" (2014 YLR 2042), condonation of delay was allowed due to professional misconduct of the counsel.
Undeniably facts are different.
' Similarly, in "Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Lt. Col. (R) Muhammad Aslam" (2007 YLR 135), reasons assigned was misplacement of bundle of files by the clerk of counsel which resulted in unintentional delay of only one day. Contents of the application seeking condonation of delay were supported by affidavits sworn not only by the counsel representing the appellant but also by the concerned clerk and as such with this background, premium was granted.
' In the case of "Al-Waqar Corporation" (2011 M LD 266), delay was sought to be condoned with specific assertion in the application for restoration that plaintiff got knowledge of dismissal of the suit on 25th of January, 2010 and within next two days, he filed application on 27th of January, 2010.
' Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Karachi High Court observed that said important aspect relating to knowledge of dismissal of the suit which was not controverted by filing counter affidavit was not taken into consideration.
' In the case of "Mrs. Zubaida Begum v. Mrs. S.T. Naqvi" (1986 SCM R 261), due weight was given to the affidayit sworn by counsel for the appellant and in view of the discussion made above, there can be no two opinions that we have also shown respect and regard to the affidavit sworn by learned counsel for the applicant but nevertheless, in view of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, contents of the petition as well as affidavit taken as gospel truth by itself would not be sufficient to attract provisions of Section 5 of The Act IX of 1908 in view of failure of the applicant to explain each day's delay in filing the appeal after expiry of period of appeal.
17. We are also conscious and as argued by learned counsel for the applicant that valuable rights of the applicant are involved in the appeal who has questioned the legality of order passed by the competent authority seeking proforma promotion but nevertheless, the argument by itself would not be sufficient to show leniency in favour of applicant because involvement of valuable rights by itself would not be sufficient to condone the delay. Reliance is placed upon "Water and Power Development Authority v. Aurangzeb" (1988 SCMR 1354), "Sheikh Muhammad Saleem v. Faiz Ahmad"
(PLD 2003 Supreme Court 628) and "Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen" (2006 SCM R 631).
18. We are also not mindful that matters are required to be decided on merits and technicalities should not hamper the justice. However, question of limitation is not a mere technicality and as such, same cannot be ignored. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Islam V. Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad and others (2011 SCM R 8).
19. Pursuant to above discussion, the applicant failed to prove sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal and as such, application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.
Service Appeal No, 14 of 2009
20. In view of the dismissal of C.M. No,02 of 2009 seeking condonation of delay, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed being barred by time.