1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.--The petitioner herein feels aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated the 30th of May, 1975 by which he allowed the writ petition filed by Muhammad Ishaq respondent No. 1 and set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner cancelling the transfer order made in his favour on the basis of public auction of the disputed shop, he being the highest bidder.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on the cancellation of the shop from the name of respondent No. 1, it was transferred to Habib--Ullah respondent No. 3 and he (petitioner) stepped into his shoes on the basis of a deed of association. In the meantime, the order of cancellation made by the Settlement Commissioner against Muhammad Ishaq was challenged by him in writ jurisdiction. It was admittedly during the pendency of the writ that a P.T.O. Was issued in favour of the present petitioner.
3. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case as the petition is barred by 109 days of which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. The only ground taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that therestoration of the shop in favour of respondent No. 1 on the acceptance of his writ petition came to his knowledge for the first time on the 27th of October 1975, although the impugned order was passed on the 30th of May, 1975. He applied for obtaining a copy thereof on 5-11-1975 which was supplied to him the same day. The present petition was filed ten days later on 15th of November, 1975. In the first instance, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner all along remained unaware of the pendency of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 but even so there is no satisfactory explanation of 8 days in applying for obtaining the copy as also of the further gap of ten days in the filing of the petition on the 15th of November. 1975 when the copy hail already been obtained on the 5th of November, 1975. The petitioner had to explain each day's delay but has failed to do so. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by limitation.