1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The appellant in this appeal died on 3rd of March, 1980, but no effort was made by the legal representatives to get themselves substituted in his place until the 29th of July, 1985, when such an application was filed, but in that' application too no attempt is made to justify the delay and all that is stated is that they were illiterate and had no knowledge of these proceedings as the appeal was being prosecuted by their father, and the more so that they had no knowledge as to which counsel was engaged to prosecute the appeal. The learned counsel for the legal representatives, however, stated that they were misled because of the amendment made in the provision for the substitution of the legal representatives by the Law Reforms Ordinance. This reason does note find place in the application for the condonation of delay nor do the reasons given show sufficient cause for the condonation of an inordinate delay of almost five years.
2. Accordingly, we would not condone the delay and hold that as the appellant had died the appeal cannot proceed in his absence, and for that reason the record is defective. The appeal is thus imperfect and stands disposed of as such.