Short Note : 1. This is a defendant's second appeal in which the only question involved is whether the first appeal filed by the defendant in the Court below was rightly dismissed as time barred. It is, therefore, not necessary to give the full details of the suit which has given rise to this appeal. 2. The relevant particulars on the basis of which the question of limitation was to be decided by the first appellate Court are stated correctly in paragraph 5 of the first appellate Court's judgment and are based on the entries made on the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court which was filed in that Court. On the basis of those entries there was no dispute that the first appeal filed by the defendant was barred by one month and twelve days. The correctness of those entries was verified by the learned Judge from the relevant documents of the Copying Section and as stated in paragraph 6 of the first appellate Courts judgment, the correctness of those entries was admitted by both sides. There was no prayer for condonation of delay made in that Court nor was any reason given out on behalf of the defendant-appellant to explain the inordinate delay in filing that appeal. That appeal had, therefore, to be dismissed as time barred. 3. Shri A.S. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant, is unable to dispute that the first appeal was rightly dismissed as time barred by the Court below on the basis of the particulars which were neither disputed in the Court below nor are in dispute now. However, he argues that the mistake appears to be of the clerk of the counsel engaged by the defendant in the trial Court who was asked to obtain the certified copies. Such an argument is not based on any facts appearing in the record. There is neither any application nor any affidavit stating the same. There is thus no foundation for this argument. This being the only argument advanced, this appeal must fail. Appeal dismissed.