1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition is barred by 133 days and the only explanation for this delay that has been given in the petition for condonation is that the learned counsel engaged to appear in the Writ Petition in the High Court did not give to the petitioners any intimation of either the date of the hearing fixed or of the result of the case, till the 18th November 1968.
2. It was only after this that the petitioner came to Lahore, applied for copies and ultimately filed a petition for special leave to appeal on the 11January 1969.
3. It is contended that if limitation is reckoned from the 18th November 1968, the petition will be in time. But this cannot be done. Limitation begins to run from the date of disposal of the writ petition on the 2nd July 1968. The petitioners cannot absolve themselves of their own responsibilities by throwing the blame on their learned counsel for the delay. Even assuming that their counsel was at fault, it is the petitioners who are to suffer and not the other side to whom a valuable right has accrued by the lapse of time.
4. We are not prepared to accept that a client's responsibility ceases after he has briefed a counsel to appear on his behalf. It is his duty to keep in touch with his counsel and to find out the progress of his matter. If he cannot go personally, it is hiss duty to make proper arrangements for timely information to be conveyed to him by either the counsel or his clerk.
5. The petitioners have not stated if they took any such steps. th