1. The SLP from which this civil appeal arises was filed after the delay of 246 days. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing, without noticing the provisions of Supreme Court Rules in regard to the condonation of delay, this Court on 12th July, 2000 condoned the delay ex parte and granted leave. On 2-4-2002 when the respondent appeared before the Court, a preliminary objection was raised that condonation of delay is contrary to the Supreme Court Rules. Therefore, this Court called upon the appellant to file additional affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. The appellant has thereafter filed additional affidavit on 1st May, 2002 explaining the delay. For this application the respondent has filed counter pointing out that explanation given by the appellant even in the additional affidavit does not explain the delay satisfactorily nor has the appellant been diligent in filing the appeal.

2. We have today heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondent and having considering the reasons given for condonation of delay in the original affidavit as well as in the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, we are not satisfied that the appellant has satisfactorily explained the delay in preferring this appeal. Therefore accepting the contention of the respondent we revoke the leave granted on 12th July, 2000. Consequently this SLP is dismissed as barred by limitation.