1. ' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---This petition for leave has been filed by petitioner Wahid Hussain against the order dated 7-12-1995 of the Sindh High Court dismissing petitioner's revision application as barred by time. Suit filed by respondent No,1 Syed Muhammad Asif/plaintiff for specific performance of contract in respect of the disputed property against the petitioner/defendant was decreed by the Civil Court and his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision application before the High Court which has been dismissed as time- barred by the impugned order dated 7-12-1995 of the High Court. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner.
2. In all there is a delay of 29 days in the filing of the revision application. An application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was filed alongwith the Revision application before the-High Court. The application was supported by the affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Aqeel, Advocate appearing for .The petitioner. The entire case for condonation of delay in filing the revision application is contained in para. 3 of the affidavit of the counsel which reads as follows:--- ' "That I was coming to this Honourable Court for the prosecution of the above petition well in time, but the case file of the above petition slipped somewhere in the way from my Motor-cycle, resulting whereof the said revision could not be filed on the same day within time. However, now, the file of the above petition has been traced out as some one has returned the same in the office of Karachi Bar Association. Hence, without any delay I am filing the same before this Honourable Court."
2. ' The above explanation was considered to be vague by the High Court and in the absence of any other material on record for condoning the delay the application was not accepted and the revision application was. Dismissed as time-barred. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court we find that cogent reasons have been given for not accepting the application for condonation of delay. The High Court found against the petitioner on the question of limitation for the following reasons:- ' "I have heard both the counsel at length and I have also perused the record. Certified copy was prepared on 27-6-1993 and the stamp was also supplied on the same day. However, I fail to understand as to why after nine days the copy was obtained by the advocate for the applicant as such he lost nine precious.Days. Again perusal of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the affidavit in support thereof does not justify as no reasonable and plausible explanation has been submitted nor any date has been mentioned on which date he was coming to file the revision. Nor he has mentioned the date on which he was handed over back the file nor the name of the person transpired in his affidavit as to who was the person who handed over the file to the Karachi Bar Association nor the name of any member or office bearers or staff of the Karachi Bar Association transpired in the affidavit to support the version of the learned counsel. Admittedly, on the day of filing of this revision viz. 27-10-1993 the applicant was present and his affidavit was sworn in support of the petition but his affidavit was not submitted in support of this application and in support of the contentions of the learned counsel In case the nine days are excluded when the copy was received by the counsel still there is delay of 20 days in filing this revision application and these 20 days have not been explained though according to law he has to account for each day. Under these circumstances. Feel no justification and accordingly dismiss this application alongwith main revision application and C.M.A. No,1182 of 1993 as time-barred."
3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that sufficient grounds had been shown for condonation of delay and affidavit of the counsel of the petitioner in support of the application for condonation of delay should have been accepted by the High Court. As observed, a very vague plea was taken in the affidavit of the counsel before the High Court without any dates and other details as noted by the High Court. No ground for interference is made out.
4. This petition is dismissed and the leave is refused.