' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, ACTG. C.J.---This petition is barred by 53 days. The delay is sought to be condoned on the following grounds:- "(1) That the judgment of the High Court was announced on 10-5-1999. The petitioners-applicants applied for the copy of the judgment on 12-5-1999. The copy was prepared and delivered to the applicants on 19-5-1999.
(2) That the applicants went to a learned Advocate-on-Record who told the applicants that time for filing the petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court is 60 days and they should file the petition on or before 19-7-1999. The applicants went to the Supreme Court in the month of July, 1999 so that they should engage an Advocate-onRecord to file a petition for leave to appeal.
However, the applicants were informed that the Supreme Court is closed for summer vacations and would reopen in the month of October. The applicants went to Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court on 7-9-1999 and asked him to prepare petition for leave to appeal so that it could be filed on the re-opening of the Supreme Court. However, the applicants were informed that the petition could be filed in the summer vacations as the office is not closed and that section 4 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the Supreme Court regarding summer vacations.
(3) That on this, the petition was prepared hurriedly on 7-9-1999 and is being filed on 8-9-1999 without any further delay.
(4) That delay in lodging the petition for leave to appeal is not intentional but has occasioned because of the circumstances which were beyond the control of the applicants."
2. We are afraid the above plea hardly constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay. In this regard reference may be made to the cases of Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Samberial, District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through General Manager and 3 others (1998 SCM R 307) and Lehar Khan and others v.
Amir Hamza and others (1999 SCM R 108) wherein it was held that each day of limitation must satisfactorily be explained and that the Registries of Supreme Court were non-vacation offices.
3. The petition is dismissed being time barred.