Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 117 of 1968, decided on 20th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 4th December 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1123 of 1966).
Art. 98 Laches‑Order impugned in writ jurisdiction after a period of more than 1 years‑Discretion in refusing to entertain petition, held, unexceptionable by Supreme Court‑Special Leave to Appeal refused.
Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 20th June 1968.
This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore by which the judgment of a learned Single Judge of that Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition on the ground of delay was affirmed. The petitioners as claimants in possession of the ground floor of a building filed C. H. Form for its transfer to them. The house has two units, namely, unit Nos. 3 and 4. The Settlement authorities transferred the upper portion of unit No. 3 to Muhammad Sharif and the lower portion to Mst. Sakina Bibi. There was no dispute with regard to this portion between the parties. Unit No. 4, however, was transferred to its entirety to respondent No. 5. The petitioners being unsuccessful to get any relief from the Settlement authorities challenged their orders in a writ petition filed in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. A learned Single Judge of that Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was a belated one as the order under challenge was passed on the 12th May 1962, and the writ petition was filed on the 4th November 1963, and therefore there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. This order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by 'the petitioners. It has been found that it was not one of those cases in which it could be said that the learned Single Judge had exercised discretion on erroneous or improper consideration because the petitioners had no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. It has been contended by Muzaffar Ahmad Mian that delay per se is not a ground for refusing a relief. We are not impressed by this argument. The learned Judge had a discretion and. as this has been exercised judicially there is no scope for interference by this Court.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer