CH. IJAZ AHMAD,, J.- Leamed counsel of the respondents in obedience of the direction of this Court vide order dated 22.9.1997 filed supplementary list, in which the name of the Advocate of the petitioners appeared, copy of the same is placed on record.
2. The leamed counsel of the applicants/petitioners contended that he did not see the supplementary list and office of the High Court has not informed him about the supplementary list.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents contended that on 26.9.1995, the case was adjourned in the presence of learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners for 3.10.1995, therefore, question of not receiving supplementary list does not arise. It was the duty and obligation of the applications/petitioners to appear on 3.10.1995, but the applicants/petitioners did not appear till 1.30 p.m. And this Court cannot exercise discretion in favour ot the applicants/petitioners specially in the circumstances that the applicants/petitioners did not give sufficient reasons for not appearing on the said date. He further argued that the application is neither supported by the affidavit of learned counsel of the applicants/petitioners nor Clerk of the learned counsel of the applicants/petitioners and that no cogent reasons are given in the application for condonation of delay.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties. It is admitted fact that revision petition was adjourned on 26.9.1995 in presence of the Advocate of the applicants/petitioners for 3.10.1995, therefore, it is the duty of the applicants/petitioners to find out about the fate of the case, but neither the applicants/petitioners nor their counsel appeared on 3.10.1995 and the case was dismissed in the late hours of the day at 1.30 p.m. The name of the counsel of the applicants/petitioners was also mentioned in the cause list. The application is not supported by the affidavit of the Clerk of the counsel of the applicants/petitioners or of the leamed counsel of the applicants/petitioners. In view of these circumstances, the conduct of the applicants/petitioners is such that I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour, of applicants/petitioners, keeping in view the application was also field belated without any explanation. It is the duty of the applicants/petitioners to explain the delay of each day but the applicants/petitioners failed to explain the delay with cogent reasons.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the application is dismissed as time-barred and also on merits.