Find a Lawyer

(On review from the judgment and‑ order of the Supreme Court, dated the 28th June 1968, in C: P. S. L. A. No. 420/67).

---Arts. 58(3) & 62‑Review Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed‑Review petition on ground that another similar petition by another party had been accepted and therefore order dismissing petition be reviewed‑Held: admission of other similar petition not of binding note and if circumstance does not justify, no ground for review.

Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.

M. B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Bashir Jafar, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Fazle Hussain, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 4.

Date of hearing : 14th October 1968.

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑

This petition seeks review of the order of a Bench of this Court, dated the 28th of June 1968; refusing to grant leave to the petitioner to appeal, against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground of laches.

The orders of the Board of Revenue which were impugned in the writ petition were passed on the 22nd of April 1962, and the 9th of August 1962, respectively. They were challenged in the High Court in writ jurisdiction on the 10th of November 1.966, after about four years. The argument that the petitioner kept waiting for the result of another writ petition filed by another party which was aggrieved by the same order, did not find favour with the Bench. The other argument that the High Court's order operated to the benefit of all the persons affected, although only one of them had challenged it, was also rejected by the High Court and we think very rightly.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one of the affected parties, whose writ petition in the High Court was dismissed like that of the petitioner has been granted leave to appeal by this Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 307 of 1965 and that the petitioner should be granted leave for that reason. This fact does not find mention in the order under review. The learned counsel submits that it was urged before the Bench but was‑not accepted.

We are not persuaded to think that any valid ground for review has been made out. The admission order in the civil petition for special leave cited above cannot be deemed to be a binding note and besides the laches of the petitioner, which has not been satisfactorily explained is of a longer duration than that in the cited petition. We decline to reopen the matter.

The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.