1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The appellant, Allied Bank of Pakistan, filed suit for recovery of Rs,5,67,1511.30 against respondent Ch. Amir Baz in the Court of District Judge, Mirpur. A decree for the amount of Rs,80,000 was passed. Appeal was filed in the High Court to seek further decree of the amount refused by the trial Court. The appeal filed before the High Court was time-barred by more than two months. An application for condonation of delay was filed in which it was stated that the learned counsel who represented the appellant did not inform the Bank that the judgment had been announced. The High Court has held that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for extension because the cause which could have been avoided with due care and attention cannot be construed as sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was dismissed on that short ground.
2. ' Admittedly the judgment was announced by the District Judge on 29th of June, 1995 in presence of the counsel for both the parties. In the application for condonation of delay it was stated that the Bank was represented by Mr. Abdul Latif Dutt, Advocate, who did not inform the bank about the fate of the case and due to the negligence of the counsel the appellant should not suffer. An affidavit in support of the application was filed by a Bank officer. The High Court has held that it was the obligation of the Bank to inquire the position of the case, and that negligence, if any, of the counsel, cannot be construed as sufficient ground as held in Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Mst. Sakeena Bibi and others 1974 SCM R 223.
3. ' It is well-settled that knowledge of the counsel is knowledge of the client. The legal principle that it was duty of the client to find out the position of A the case cannot be disputed. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum, that in the counter-affidavit filed by the learned counsel representing the respondent before the District Court it was stated that the Assistant Vice-President of the Bank was present in the Court but in this Court an affidavit sworn by Mr. Abdul Latif Dutt, Advocate who represented the Bank before the District Judge, has been, filed in which he has stated that one Mazhar was present when the judgment was announced. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum contended that it is a clear contradiction sufficient to show that no officer of the Bank was present when the judgment was announced. We fail to see how this contradiction can advance the case of the appellant because in any case the counsel of the. Bank was present at the time of the announcement of the judgment and his knowledge is legally the knowledge of the Bank.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum vehemently contended that section 3 of the Limitation Act was amended in 1992 and now a Court is not bound to dismiss a suit or appeal if it is time-barred and now it has become discretionary for a Court to dismiss or not to dismiss a time-barred suit or appeal. In order to appreciate the point we may reproduce the amended section:-- "3. Dismissal of suits, etc. Instituted, etc. After period of limitation.--Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 25 (inclusive) every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made, after the period of limitation prescribed thereof by the First Schedule may be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
5. This amended provision was not brought to the notice of the High Court nor was any argument built on it. It was the duty of the appellant to show why the discretion should have been exercised in his favour. Even in this Court no ground relating to amended provision of law reproduced above has been raised and only during arguments the learned counsel has advanced this point. Even before us the learned counsel has not advanced any reason why the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the Bank. We have gone through the application for condonation moved before the High Court. It is stated in the application that the Bank had requested Mr. Abdul Latif Dutt, its counsel before the District Court, that he may intimate about the result of the case but Mr. Abdul Latif Dutt left the country. It is stated that on 29th of November, 1995 the Bank came to know that the judgment had been announced on 29th of June, 1995. As to why during the period which elapsed between 29th of June to 29th of November no effort was made to find out whether the judgment had been announced or not. No explanation has been given for it. In these circumstances we do not see any merit in the submission of the learned counsel that a case for favourable exercise of discretion could at all be made out in the present case..
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum has relied on a case reported as Abdul Murad Khan v. Mst.
7. Noshaba and others 1992 SCM R 1828, wherein it has been laid down that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. We find that this judgment has no bearing on the present appeal.
8. ' Finding no force in the appeal, we order its dismissal with costs.