1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal, which is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Circuit), made in a second appeal, is time-barred by 68 days.. The impugn--ed judgment in the High Court was delivered on the 28th of May 1971. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of that judgment on the 21st of July 1971, which was made available to him the same day. The prescribed period of 60 days for leave to appeal to this Court thus expired on the 28th of July 1971. The leave petition, however, was filed on the 4th of October 1971, and the delay, which has occurred, is sought to be explained by the circumstance that as the Supreme Court was closed for long vacation during the interim period between the 28th of July 1971 to the 4th of October 1971, the petitioner filed the petition on the re-opening of the Court on the 4th of October 1971.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under section 4 of the Limitation Act, the period of vacation during which the Court remained closed, has to be excluded. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel that the offices of the Court remained open during the vacation as per the directions issued by the learned Chief Justice of the Court in this behalf, he submitted that the direction in question does not specify that the offices were also to remain open for purposes of receiving petitions to the Court. This argument is entirely misconceived, as the offices were open for their ordinary and routine business, which includes the reception of petitions for special leave to appeal. The learned counsel then argued that 'the rule (rule 3 of Order 11 of the Supreme Court Rules), under which the notification was issued by the learned Chief Justice, was ultra vires of section 4 of the Limita--tion Act. This argument is based on the contention that the offices of the Court are separate from the Court, and even when the offices were open, the Court shall be deemed to remain closed: This again is a wholly untenable argument. The offices are a part of the Court, constituting an administrative and an adjunctive judicial wing of the Court, which were open during the vacation a during the working days for their normal office work, which included the receipt and registration of petitions for leave to appeal.
3. The question raised by the learned counsel is, in fact, concluded by a full .Court decision of this Court reported as Fateh Ali Khan v. Muhammad Khan (1971 SCMR 781), wherein precisely similar contentions were raised but were repelled.
4. This petition is dismissed as barred by time.