1. ' The facts leading to present application are that respondent Musamat Khatoon Hadi widow of Late H.M. Nabi Hadi filed ejectment proceedings (Rent Application No,2 of 1991) against the appellant Khawaja Sohail before learned 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, Central.
2. The rent application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 17-4-1995.
3. ' Being aggrieved by the order of Rent Controller, the appellant preferred appeal, which was dismissed by this Court on 10-3-1998 when it was fixed for regular hearing. The order of this Court is reproduced herein under in extensor for ready reference: "ORDER 10-3-1998 11-30 a.m. None present for parties.
4. ' It would appear that none appeared on the last date as well. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution."
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellant filed (Civil Miscellaneous Application No,359 of 1998) under Order XLI, Rule 19, C.P.C., on 11-4-1998 for restoration of this appeal. In support of application the learned counsel has filed his affidavit wherein he has stated that on 10-3-1998 the present appeal was fixed before her lordship (as she then was) Mrs. Justice Majida Razvi on Serial No,7 in the cause list. Since she was on leave on that day, regular board was transferred to my lord Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, J.-- ' It is further stated that he remained sitting in the Court for a long time but, a part heard regular matter of Choudhry Iftikhar, Advocate was proceeding. At 11-00 a.m. The learned counsel for appellant went to the Court of Hon'ble Chief Justice for adjustment of regular board. Exactly at that time the present appeal was called and dismissed for non-prosecution. His absence was not intentional as the circumstances were beyond his control. Learned counsel has further averred that on the earlier date case was adjourned to a date in office. The appellant had, therefore, no knowledge of the date of hearing and as such he also could not be present before this Court on the said date of hearing.
6. ' I have heard Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Aziz A. Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. ' The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments reiterated the submissions made in the affidavit which are reproduced herein above. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the application for restoration of appeal is hopelessly time-barred, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
8. ' The perusal of record shows that on 10-3-1998 the present appeal was taken up at 11-30 .a.m.
9. When none appeared for the parties and consequently appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
10. The restoration application was filed on 11-4-1998 which is beyond the period of thirty days. The appellant or his learned counsel has not given any explanation for delay in filing the restoration application. The contents of the affidavit reproduced hereinabove shows that learned counsel come to know about the dismissal of appeal on the very same date i,e,, 10-3-1998.
11. It is well-settled that the delay of each day is to be explained. The limitation creates valuable right in favour of the parties. Whoever sleeps over his right is not entitled to the relief beyond the period prescribed by law.
12. ' The authorities in the case of S. Mahmood Hyder v. M/s. Alliance Enterprises reported in PLD 1985 Karachi page 691, Rehmatullah and 2 others v. Lal Muhammad reported in PLD 1986 Quetta 121, Mst.
13. Zubaida Mumtaz Begum and others v. Mst. Ikram Jan and another reported in 1990 SCMR 1025 and Muhammad Ibrahim and another v. Taslimul Hassan reported in 1982 CLC 264 (Lahore) relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant are distinguishable and the facts and circumstances of the cited cases are different from the present case.
14. ' The contention of the learned counsel that on the earlier date case was adjourned to date in office, therefore, appellant had no knowledge of the date of hearing and as such he could not be present before this Court on the earlier date of hearing is devoid of force. The appellant was represented by a local counsel who is stationed at Karachi. The cause list is always issued by the Court and copy of it is supplied to the Advocates well in advx-ice. Thus, the present application for restoration of appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The delay in filing application is beyond the period prescribed by law. Consequently the listed application is dismissed with no order as to costs.