1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition is barred by 411 days. This petition has been filed to call in question an order of the Lahore High Court which was passed in Writ Petition No. 345-R of 1968 at the Bahawal--pur Circuit on the 21st of December 1971. It appears from the judgment of the High Court that Mr. M. A. Farani actually appeared for the petitioner at the hearing of the said writ petition and the petition was disposed of after fully considering his arguments.
2. Nevertheless, the petitioner now would have us believe that he had no knowledge about the disposal of the said writ petition until the 19th of December 1972 when an earlier writ petition filed by him being No. 551-R of 1964 was fixed for hearing. In this matter also Mr. Farani appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He enquired from him as to when his Writ Petition No. 345-R of 1968 would come up for hearing, and it was only then that he was informed that his petition had already been disposed of and dismissed. Coming to know about this, he "applied for a copy of the judgment on the 4th of January, 1973 and the same was made ready wide delivered to him on the 14th of March, 1973. He took a little more time to arrange for necessary funds and then file this petition for special leave on the 5th of April 1973.
3. Finding that Mr. Farani actually appeared at the hearing of the Writ Petition No. 345-R of 1968, the petitioner has tried to make out a case that the said learned counsel never gave him intimation about the dismissal of his petition, because, the unregistred letter written by the learned counsel conveying this information never reached him due perhaps to the disturbed conditions is the country s result of tie 1971-Wr. We are not satisfied that the explanation for the delay put up by the petitioner is either genuine or convincing. It is obvious that the petitioner has been negligent in not keeping himself informed about the fate of hi case. There is no rule which prescribes that an earlier petition filed must be heard first. Therefore, no grievance can be made on this account tithe petitioner.
4. A perusal of the papers discloses that the petitioner is in the habit of coming with such belated applications. We are not aware of any such disturbed conditions in the District of Bahawalpur either in December 1971, or at any time thereafter which could have prevented letters reaching the petitioner by post.
5. This petition is accordingly dismissed as being hopelessly barred by time.