This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 26-12-1998, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. l was accepted. Respondent No. l filed an appeal challenging the order of Chief Conservator of Forests dated 29-10-1996 whereby the order of his promotion dated 4-1-1996 was set aside. The Service Tribunal has accepted his appeal and set aside the impugned order and restored the order of his promotion. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the petition for leave to appeal is time-barred by 17 days.
2. There is a condonation of delay application which is accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani, Advocate, to the effect that he was intimated about the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal through a notice on 1-1-1999 but said notice was missed somewhere due to his inadvertence and, thus, he could not remember to inform the petitioner about the result of the appeal.
3. Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal to this Court resulted due to the fact that notice served upon Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani Advocate, was misplaced and thus, he failed to inform his client earlier. He has contended that delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal was due to bona fide mistake and could not be regarded as a negligence. The learned counsel has argued that as C.P.C. Is not fully applicable to the proceedings before the Service Tribunal, the delay can be condoned without adverting the strict view taken in some of the authorities on this point.
4. Mr. M. TBbasSum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has argued that this is not a bona fide omission but is a case of gross negligence. The learned counsel has argued that knowledge of the counsel would be deemed to be the knowledge of his client and thus, no indulgence can be shown in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that there is a number of authorities on the point that delay in cases of negligence due to failure of the counsel to inform his client is not excusable. The learned counsel has cited the following authorities in support of his contention:-- 1974 SCMR 223).
Identical view was taken in cases reported as Mahboob and another v. Muzaffar Din (1992 SCR 338), Khadim Hussain Khan v. The State (PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 13), Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashnmir v. Ch. Muhammad Latif (PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 70).
5. After giving due consideration to the matter, I come to the conclusion that even if the period of limitation would reckoned from 1-1-1999, the date on which the notice was served on counsel for the petitioner, the petition for leave to appeal is time-barred by 17 days. The affidavit that notice served on counsel for the petitioner was missed, does not constitute sufficient cause for excusing delay because even if the notice was lost, the counsel for the petitioner had the knowledge of the announcement of decision and he could further confirm the matter from the office of the Service Tribunal. Therefore, the affidavit to the effect that the counsel for the petitioner in the Service Tribunal could not inform him of decision due to misplacement of notice does not bring the case within the ambit of a bona fide mistake rather this is a case of negligence which cannot be excused. The contention that as C.P.C. Is not applicable to the proceedings of the Service Tribunal the strict view should not be taken, has no merits because the question of the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is to be seen in view of the law of limitation and the Supreme Court Rules and not in view of the provisions contained in C.P.C.
6. In light of what has been stated above, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
Hence, the petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed as being time-barred.