Constructive knowledge and limitation barred revision where the order date was fixed and delay remained unexplained.

Constructive knowledge of an appellate order can be inferred where the hearing date is fixed in the presence of both parties and the order date is ascertainable from the order sheet and cause list. On those facts, limitation runs from the date fixed for pronouncement, and a revision filed thereafter is barred by limitation. Where no satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay, condonation may be refused. The text also notes that such factual findings are binding in reference jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petition was barred by limitation and whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The Tribunal found as a fact that the appellate order had been fixed in the presence of both parties after hearing, that the date for delivery of order could be ascertained from the order sheet and cause list, and that the applicant had the opportunity to know the date on which the order would be passed. On that basis, the Tribunal treated the applicant as having constructive knowledge of the appellate order and counted limitation from the date fixed for orders. The Tribunal also found no satisfactory explanation for the delay beyond the limitation period and accordingly declined to condone it. Those factual findings were held to be binding in reference jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revision petition was rightly held to be barred by limitation, and the refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

---