1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This petition is barred by 20 days and the only explanation given for the delay is that the petitioner was under the erroneous impression that the time for filing of petitions for special leave in this Court in civil matters com--menced from the date of the signing of the decree. This impres--sion is wrong, for, a copy of the decree is not required to be filed h along with the petition for special leave to appeal.
2. In the present case, the judgment of the High Court was delivered on the 3rd July 1969, copies were applied for on the 13th August 1969, decree was signed on the 15th of October 1969 and certified copies of the judgment and decree were delivered on the 30th of October 1969. The petition for special leave was, however, filed on the 9th of December 1969. There is no expla--nation for the delay that took place after the certified copy of the decree was received.
3. The petition should have been filed on the 16th of Novem--ber 1969. This gave the petitioner ample time even after the receipt of the certified copies to put in his petition for special leave.
4. The time for filing the petition for special leave begins to run from the date of the delivery of the judgment but even if a copy of e the decree has to be filed it does not give a fresh lease of limita-- tion but the time spent in obtaining the copy of the decree may be taken into consideration in condoning the delay, provided the petitioner has satisfactorily explained each day's delay.
5. In the present case, we are not satisfied that the delay, since e receipt of the certified copy, has been adequately explained, hence we are unable to condone the delay. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being barred by time.