' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---When this appeal came up for hearing, Ch. Muhammad Bashir, the learned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was time- barred. He also submitted that the ground put forward by the appellant for condonation of delay was far from satisfactory. He, therefore, pleaded that the appeal may be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. Judgment of the High Court was announced on 20th May, 1999. Seven days were consumed in obtaining the requisite copies which means that limitation expired on 26th July. However, the appeal was filed on 2nd August, 1999. Thus, the appeal was belated by seven days. In the application for condonation of delay it is stated as follows--- "that the petitioner suddenly fell ill and could not file the PLA/appeal in time. The doctor advised the petitioner 'Bed Rest' for 15 days. As soon as the petitioner regained his health, the PLA/appeal is being filed. Thus, in this case, no intentional delay was caused. Medical certificate of the doctor and the affidavit are enclosed herewith."
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the appellant and a medical certificate.
The medical certificate reads as follows--- "TO WHOME IT MAY CONCERN.
' It is hereby certified that Mr. Fateh Din son of Shah Muhammad resident of Charaki P.O Panjari Tehsil and District Bhimber was suffering from enteric fever. .He was treated as out door patient accordingly. Considering the nature and severity of disease, patient advised bed rest for 15 days i.e. 18-7-1999 to 1-8-1999.
Signature & Seal of Dr. Mazhar Iqbal C.M.O. T.H.Q. Bhimber."
4. Mr. Muhammad Ayub Sabir vehemently cotnended that the contents of the condonation application affidavit accompanying it as well as the medical certificate have not been contradicted by the other side and are sufficient for condonation of delay. He submitted that illness was a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. He relied on the case reported as Qurban Ali and others v. The State (PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 104) in which condonation application was rejected and it was laid down that if circumstances are beyond the control of a party it constitutes sufficient cause for condonation.' Ch.' Muhammad Bashir on the other hand vehemently contended that no reliance can be placed on the affidavit as well as the medical certificate. He pointed out that the certificate purports to have been signed by the Civil Medical Officer of Tehsil Headquarters Hospital but it does not carry any date and is also not on the official pad of the Hospital. He pointed out that another reason which made the certificate doubtful was that it is not mentioned in it as to when the appellant was treated by the certifying doctor. It was contended by him that bed rest for 15 days mentioned in the certificate was ended on 1st August, 1999 while the appeal was filed in the registry on the very next day, namely, 2nd of August, 1999. According to the learned counsel this in itself proves that the certificate was manipulated.
5. We regret that we are unable to accept the affidavit and the medical certificate. As already noted limitation expired on 26th July but the affidavit and the medical certificate are totally silent on the point as to when the appellant fell ill. The certificate does not even carry any date on which it was signed. The affidavit and the medical certificate are silent on the point as to when the appellant remained under treatment as outdoor patient. The very fact that the appellant, who comes from a village, was treated as an outdoor patient and was not admitted in Hospital makes it doubtful that the patient was actually confined to bed till Ist August, 1999. The close scrutiny of the affidavit shows that it is not mentioned therein that the appellant did confine himself to bed till 1st of August.
6. Therefore we reach the conclusion that the medical certificate as well as the affidavit lack factors for implicit reliance. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
' Since the appeal is barred by time it also entails dismissal. It is accordingly dismissed but no order is made as to costs in this Court.