Valid service on counsel starts limitation; statutory outer limit bars condonation beyond prescribed time.

Maintainability depended on whether the present appellant was shown to have been a party to the earlier appeal; as the record contained no signature on the prior memorandum of appeal or vakalatnama, the earlier dismissal did not bind her. Limitation, however, ran from valid service of the challenged order on counsel whose authority had not been revoked, and such service was treated as service on the appellant. The appeal was filed after the statutory period of 45 days plus the further 15 days, and the appellate forum had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the outer limit expressly prescribed by statute. The challenge to the forfeiture order therefore failed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal was maintainable at the instance of the present appellant; and (ii) whether the appeal was within limitation and, if not, whether delay beyond the statutory period could be condoned.

Issue (i): whether the appeal was maintainable at the instance of the present appellant.

Analysis: The record showed no signature of the present appellant on the earlier memorandum of appeal or vakalatnama, and nothing established that she had been a party to that proceeding. The earlier dismissal of the connected matter therefore did not bind her, and the present appeal could not be treated as a of that proceeding.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the appeal was within limitation and, if not, whether delay beyond the statutory period could be condoned.

Analysis: The order under challenge had been served on the appellant's advocate whose authority had not been revoked. Service on counsel was treated as valid service under section 22, and limitation was held to run from that date. The appeal, having been filed after the statutory period of 45 days plus the further 15 days, was beyond time. The Tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the period prescribed by section 12(4).

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be barred by limitation and incapable of being entertained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the forfeiture order failed because, although the appeal was maintainable, it was filed beyond the outer limit of limitation fixed by the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory service is validly effected on an advocate whose authority continues, limitation begins from that service date, and the appellate forum cannot condone delay beyond the outer limit expressly prescribed by the statute.

---