1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, in R. S. A. No. 182 of 1963 decided on the 22nd January 1969. By this judgment, the learned Single Judge, accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge, Jhelum, dated the 16th May 1963. As a result the suit of the respondent for possession through pre-emption of the land in dispute situated in the area of village Dariala Kahun, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum, was decreed. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous application for certificate to file Letters Patent Appeal on the 26th February 1969, in the High Court of West Pakistan, but the same was returned. It was again presented on the 7th March 1969 and was rejected on the 17th June 1969. The petitioner seeks permission to challenge the order of the High Court dated the 22nd January 1969, in this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. The office has raised an objection that the petition is barred by 186 days. The petitioner has filed an application for condona--tion of delay and it was urged on his behalf that the time for filing the petition under Order XIII, rule I of the Rules of this Court should be counted from the date of refusal of certificate, namely, the 17th June 1969, and from that date the petition was within time. This contention was rejected by this Court by order dated the 28th November 1969. It was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the decision of this Court in the case of Presh Chandra Biswa s and others v. Tapen Kanti Choudhury (PLD1963SC598) the petition for special leave could only be filed against the order of the High Court allowing the appeal against the petitioner. On this, the petitioner prayed for time to give better explanation of the delay that has occurred. In this connection the petitioner has filed a further application on the 8th December 1969, for condonation of delay.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are satisfied that the petition for special leave to appeal is barred by time. It will be noticed that the judgment of the High Court against which the petition is filed, was delivered on the 22nd January 1969. The petitioner applied for its copy on the 11th February, 1969. It was completed and delivered to the petitioner on the 7th March 1969. He filed a Miscellaneous application on the 7th March 1969, for obtaining a certificate under clause 10 of the Letters Patent to file Letters Patent Appeal but it was dismissed on the 17th June 19
69. The petitioner applied for copy of the order in the said application on the 17th June 1969, and the copy was supplied to him on the 26th July 1969.
4. Even if the explanation of the petitioner is accepted that he learnt about the order of the judgment of the High Court on the 11th February 1969, there is no explanation on behalf of the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the petition for special leave to appeal as late as on the 25th September 1969. According to the decision of this Court in the case of Kalachand Sikdar and others v. Fazlur Karim Mian and others (16DLR417(SC)) the petitioner is only entitled to condonation of delay for such time as he has taken in exhausting his remedies in the High Court. He was, therefore, entitled to condonation of delay up to the 26th July 1969, when he obtained the copy of the order rejecting his application to grant certificate under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
5. Ch. Abdur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court was closed for summer vacation during the months of August and September 1969, and therefore under section 4 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner is entitled to claim extension of time up to the re-opening of the Court. In the first place, this ground is an afterthought because no such ground was taken in the application for condonation of delay filed with the petition for special leave to appeal. The very fact that the petitioner filed the petition for special leave to appeal during vacation shows that he has no such ground in mind at the time when he filed his petition. Secondly, this contention is devoid of all force because though this Court was in vacation it cannot be said to be closed because its Registries were open for receiving the petitions and other work. Section 4 could only be applied in case there was no arrangement for doing the business of the Court during the vacation. Since this Court was open for receiving petitions and for doing other work, section 4 of the Limitation Act has no application.
6. As a last resort, Ch. Abdur Rahman contended that the petitioner was misled by the practice in the High Court and therefore, the delay in filing the petition for special leave to appeal be condoned.
7. This contention also has no force. There is no material placed on the record to show under whose advice the petitioner was misled. Moreover, any practice of the High Court has no relevancy. In these circumstances the petitioner has, not made out any case for condonation of delay. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by time.