' The appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by time after recording evidence by the learned lower appellate Court on the question whether there exists sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The learned lower appellate Court after careful and elaborate appraisal of evidence recorded a finding of fact that no sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. In the application made by the petitioner for condonation of delay it was stated that he was given 2-12-1984 as the date for collection of the certified copy of the judgment and decree by the copying agency whereas in the evidence when he appeared as his own witness he stated that he was given 28-11-1984 as the date for collection of copy on which date it was not ready. His case was that he went to copying agency on 2-12-1984 and was told that the copy was not ready and thereafter he went on 5-1-1985 when it was delivered and on it the date of preparation was recorded as 2-12-1984.
3. I have gone through the statement of the petitioner himself in which he stated that he instructed his counsel to collect copy and to inform him so that appeal could be filed. The petitioner at that time was posted at Bahawalpur. His case was that he had been attending the copying agency at Lahore for collection of copy but when the record of his attendance was summoned by the Court the same was stated to have been destroyed. The petitioner when appeared as his own witness stated that he did not know whether he had applied for leave. He, however, admitted that for leaving a station the leave was to be obtained from the Head Office at Lahore through telegram or written application. No evidence was produced from the record at the Headquarters at Lahore that he ever made such application for leaving his place of posting at Bahawalpur. The copy was received by the clerk of his counsel and not by the petitioner who was not examined as witness. In these circumstances it was rightly inferred by the learned lower appellate Court that had he been examined he would not have supported the petitioner.
4. The finding of the learned lower appellate Court that no sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay has not been shown to have suffered from any material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisiction vested in the Court either on account of misreading, mis-construction of evidene or non-reading of any material piece of evidence. The revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.