1. ABDUL WALL MAKHDWM (MEMBER).-This appeal is filed before this Tribunal on 24-2-1975 against the judgment and decree dated 9-11-1970 and 13-11-1970 respectively passed by the District Judge, Khairpur in Appeal No. 64/69 against the judgement and decree dated 30-4-1969 passed by the Civil Judge 1st, Khairpur in Suit No. 70/66.
2. Since the matter was decided against the appellant in the aforesaid judgments, the appellant filed second appeal bearing No. 185 of 1971 in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan which appeal abated by the order of his Lordship on 4-10-1974.
3. The provisions of Article 212 (2) of the Constitution of 1973 were extended to this Tribunal by the Gazette Notification dated 6-5-1974. The appel--lant has filed this appeal under section 6 of Sind Service Tribunal Act 1973. It is by now settled law specially after the authority of the Supreme Court as reported in PLD 1976 at page 195 that abatement becomes effective from the date that the Provisions of Article 212 (2) of the Constitution 1974 were extended and that was on 6-5-1974.
4. Obviously therefore no formal order of the High Court would be necessary to terminate the proceedings of his nature before it.
5. This appeal has been filed on 24-2-1975. No application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved by the Assistant Advocate General for condo nation of delay though the limitation is pleaded expressly in the written statement. The learned Assistant Advocate-General who is present in the Court is not able to account for the delay in filing of the appeal. He says that he is unwell. But in fact he has already argued one appeal today. The point involved is very simple inasmuch as we have already disposed of such matters in the manner as has been held by the Supreme Court.
6. Accordingly we come to the conclusion that the appeal is hopelessly time barred and must fail on the above grounds. Since we decide the appeal on legal grounds, we do not consider it necessary to go into its merits.
7. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has urged that time taken in getting the copy of the abatement order should be excluded. But as that is~ not the order appealed against, this argument must fail.
8. As a result we dismiss the appeal as time-barred and leave the parties to bear their own costs.