' Arguments heard.
' Through this revision petition the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 5-3-1986, dismissing the appeal of the Water and Power Development Authority, the present petitioner, has been assailed. It is contended that the appeal was filed eleven days after the expiry of limitation, as the delay took place at the Headquarter Office of Water and Power Development Authority in granting sanction for the filing of the appeal.
2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the application filed by the Water and Power Development Authority before the appellate Court under section 5 o the Limitation Act and find that nothing has been stated therein t show how the Legal Department at the Headquarter's Office stumbled in the matter. Each day's delay should have been explained in the said application, which has not been done. What only has been stated is that delay occurred in the transmission of the sanction for the preferment of the appeal, which by itself is not sufficient to explain the delay. In these circumstances, the dismissal of the appeal appears to be legal and proper. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine.
Revision . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.