1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---The defendants' side in a suit for correction of birth entry recorded in the papers of the petitioners, has called in question the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. Earlier they had lost throughout ' One consideration which prevailed with the High Court was that the petitioners' appeal before a lower Court was time-barred. Learned counsel admits that the appeal was time-barred but has advanced two arguments to overcome this point. One, that the Government and similar other institutions should like ordinary litigants be permitted to satisfy the Court with regard to the normal human errors and elements due to which sometimes innocent delay occurs and the subject of condo nation should be dealt with without any discrimination against the Government or semi- Government Institutions.
2. ' In so far as the pure theoretical position is concerned, learned counsel is absolutely right. When questioned; as to whether, the petitioners have been able to show with reference to specific events and elements in this case that there was good cause for condo nation, he has failed to rely on any material which might have been ignored, misread or misinterpreted. This argument has, therefore, no force. Secondly, the learned counsel stated that the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education who is the first petitioner herein is an institution independent of the persons who control and run and manage it and because it was not a party independently arraigned before the trial Court, therefore, it had a special position and thus a time-barred appeal filed by it should have been entertained notwithstanding the examination of limitation. We do not agree with him. The Institution is today represented through him. Earlier it was represented before the trial Court through petitioners Nos.2 and 3 as well as their lawyers. The interests of the Institution were fuly safeguarded. There was no clash between the petitioners' interests inter se. It is unimaginable that the Chairman of the Board who is petitioner No,2 and the Controller of Examinations who is petitioner No,3 could not have, if they so wished, acted in the best interest of the Board itself. The argument being hyper technical does not furnish enough justification for interference---See WAPDA v. Alam Khan (PLD 1991 SC 374). There being no ground for interference leave to appeal thus is refused.