The petitioner has filed Civil Miscellaneous 517 of 1994 for permission to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur dated 5-7-1994 in forma pauperise. The limitation for filing such an application under Article 156 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is thirty days but the application was instituted on 18-10-1994 and is barred by 65 days.
2. The appellant has applied for condonation of delay vide Civil Miscellaneous No. l/C of 1994 under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 on the ground that he was advised by his counsel that limitation for filing an appeal was 90 days.
3. Both these applications have been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant relies upon Nazar Muhammad and another v. Mst.
Shahzada Begum and another PLD 1974 SC 22 and Dan v. Said and 2 others PLD 1975 Lah. 870 to contend that the mistaken advice by the counsel is a sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, pointed that there is no affidavit sworn by the counsel who had allegedly given wrong advice to the petitioner/appellant. In this behalf he has relied upon Muhammad Manzoor v. Ghulam Murtaza 1994 SCM R 987.
5. From the perusal of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 it would appear that the averments contained therein are highly vague. Neither the name of the learned counsel who advised the appellant has been mentioned nor the date on which the said advice was tendered has been stated in the application. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has explained that it was Muhammad Tayyub Joyyia, Advocate, Depalpur who had given mistaken advice but no affidavit of the learned counsel has been placed on record. Consequently the application cannot be accepted in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Manzoor v. Ghulam Murtaza 1994 SCM R 987. .
6. Be that as it may, mistaken advice by a counsel by itself is not also a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in all circumstances, unless it is shown that the advice rendered with due care and attention. (See Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar PLD 1977 SC 102).
7. In this view of the matter, no sufficient cause for condonation of delay is made out with the result that Civil Miscellaneous No.1/C of 1994 is rejected and Civil Miscellaneous 517 of 1994 is also dismissed as being barred by time.
MAIN APPEAL The appellant's learned counsel seeks time to pay the requisite court---fee. Let the needful be done before 23-2-1995 failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed.