1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition, which has been filed to call in question an order of the Lahore High Court passed on the 5th of July 1973 dismissing a civil revision petition, is barred by 28 days. The period of limitation expired on the 3rd of September 1973.
2. On the last occasion when this petition came up for hearing and the delay was pointed out to the learned counsel, he stated that although the petitioners were aware that the period of limitation expired on the 3rd of September 1973, they did not come up to this Court for special leave, because, the respondent Corporation had given them an assurance that if they did not move the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court their request for being allowed to continue as tenants under the Corporation would receive sympathetic consideration. Learned counsel on that date stated from the Bar that he had himself seen documents which would support the averment of his clients regarding the aforementioned assurance. The petition was accordingly adjourned to enable him to file copies of such documents. ` The petitioners have now filed a report of the Lands Officer of the Cor--poration which he made on the 1st of September 1973 and the order of the Administrator of the Corporation thereon dated the 12th of September, 1973.
3. The report shows that the petitioners requested that if the respondent --Corporation accepted them as tenants and realised the rents of the shops in question from the date of their original possession, they would withdraw their case from the High Court. The Taxing Officer had also recommended that this proposal may be accepted, but the Administrator rejected the same saying that "The note of the Lands Officer at page 7 does not depict the true picture of the case.
4. There is absolutely no question of compromise or the question of leasing out the land underneath in favour of 8 persons."
5. It will be noticed from the above that there is no mention either in the report of the Lands Officer or in the order of the Administrator with regard to any proceedings in the Supreme Court; nor can it be said that the recommendation of a subordinate official of the Municipal Corporation, who had no authority or power to extend time or to give any assurance of any kind whatsoever can be put forward as a ground for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
6. Where the petitioners seek condonation on the ground that they were prevented from filing the petition in time because of the assurance given by the Municipal Corporation, they have to show that the Municipal Corporation was aware of the fact that they were gong to the Supreme Court and some competent official of the Municipal Corporation prevented A them from moving the Supreme Court by holding out a clear and definite assurance. Nothing of the kind has been brought out in the present case. It is improbable that the Municipal Corporation as a statutory Body would enter into such a compromise after the revision petition in the High Court bad been dismissed.