' Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 29-4-1998, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W.P.No,4495 of 1996.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a Constitutional petition praying therein that respondent No,1 be directed to get her English Papers 'A' and 'B' of B.A. Examination held in November, 1995, under Roll No,19040, remarked. The learned Judge in Chambers after calling for the record and parawise comments, dismissed the writ petition, inter ilia, with the following observations:-- "(2) Report and parawise comments were sent for. The same have been received and perused, according to which, petitioner's papers were checked wherein it transpired that she had got 24 out of 100 marks in Paper-A and 38 out of 100 marks in Paper-B in English Subject. Pass marks were 6 of
200. Therefore, to enable her to pass in English she was given 4 grace marks. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for re-marking of the papers. Learned counsel for the respondents was asked to get instructions. According to him the papers have since been destroyed under the rules. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on file copy of the rules as well as the order on the basis of which papers pertaining to year 1995 have since been destroyed. In these circumstances, re-marking cannot be ordered. However, re-checking was done in the presence of the petitioner where she did not raise any objection. No further order is required to be passed in this writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have not re-checked the answer books and only recounted the marks given on the title page of the answer book.
4. We are afraid, the plea raised by the petitioner necessitates an investigation into the facts which cannot be directed in these proceedings. Furthermore, the petition is barred by 144 days. The delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that due to serious injuries caused to the petitioner in an accident she remained in hospital for medical treatment. The explanation tendered by the petitioner in not approaching this Court within time suffers from vagueness. It is not stated in the application for condonation of delay as to when she sustained the alleged injuries and for how much time she remained in the hospital. Furthermore, no documentary evidence has been placed on record in support of the grounds urged for condonation of the delay.
' Resultantly. The petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation, and leave declined.