1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.-- f his appeal is by leave of this Court but it is subject to the objection of limitation that is why 'the learned counsel for the respondents got up and raised the aforesaid objection before the learned counsel for the appellants could open his case.
2. ' The appellants filed a civil suit for possession as owners and also for pemanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 4-10-1974. Mst. Akhtari Begum filed an appeal. The District Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 3-4-1975.
3. ' A second appeal was filed by S. Iqbal Hussain Shah. This appeal was dismissed with costs throughout by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by judgment, dated 2-8-1986.
4. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of the High Court was announced on 2-8-1986. The appellants came to know of this on 27-10-1986. They applied for copy on 28-10-1986. The copy was made available on 5-11-1986. The petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court on 20-11-1986.
5. ' Learned counsel for the respondents in the first instance submitted that the reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay do not provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Before considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, we would like to advert to the ground taken in the petition for condonation of delay which is as follows:-- "That the appeal (R.SA. No,552/1975) in question by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, was decided during summer vacations i.e, on 2-8-1986. However, the petitioners were never informed, given a notice and conveyed about the same by the Court or their counsel. They for the first time came to know about the impugned order on 27-10-1986, they without any further delay filed their application for the issuance of the copies on 28-10-1986, which were made available to them on 5- 11-1986, hence this petition for condonation of delay, without wasting even a single day."
6. This is hardly a sufficient explanation to accept. It is not stated in this petition as to when and how they came to know about the decision of the High Court. The mere fact that there were summer vacations would not justify ignorance about the announcement of the judgment by the High Court.
7. The practice prevailing is known to all more particularly to the Advocates of the Lahore High Court that even during summer vacations when a judgment is to be announced, a copy of the cause list is sent invariably to the Advocate who is counsel in that particular case. The learned counsel for the appellants was confronted with this position but he was unable to give any reply. Even otherwise, although in the petition for condonation of delay, it is stated as referred to above, that after the copies had been made available the appellants came to this Court without wasting even a single day but this is not correct because the petition for leave to appeal was filed on 20-11-1986. There is not even a word in this petition as to what happened from 5-11-1986 to 20-11-1986. As the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to meet the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents, this appeal is dismissed as being time barred with no order as to costs.