' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-This Letters Patent Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby he on 5th April, 1967, accepted Writ Petition No, 2293-R/63 filed by Noor Elahi respondent No, 1 against Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Umrao Ali, etc the appellants herein. Alongwith the Letters Patent Appeal an application i,e, C.M. 1/67 for the condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent appeal has also been moved. Since we propose to dispose of that application first, we need not set out the facts of the case. The impugned judgment was passed and announced on 5th April, 1967. The application for supply of its copy was given on 12th April, 1967. The copy of the judgment was prepared on 14th April, 1967, whereas the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 4th May, 1967. It was thus barred by 7 days.
2. The learned counsel contends that the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition had given the impression to the appellants that the impugned order could be challenged only by way of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court and it was under this bona fide impression that the petitioners applied for the copy for Supreme Court, which is borne out by the copy of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents has seriously opposed the prayer for the condonation of delay on various grounds.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available before us, we find that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal ; the affidavit of the learned counsel that he was under the wrong impression that the remedy would lie by way of Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court or that he had given such advice or impression to the petitioners/appellants has not been filed in this Court and that it is now well-settled that the wrong impression given by a counsel is not a good ground for the condonation of delay in fill in appeal. For these reasons, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Resultantly, the application i,e, C.M. 1/67 is rejected and the Letters Paten Appeal is dismissed as barred by time. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.