Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 712 of 1976, decided on 31st October, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 12th April, 1976, in W. P. 25‑R of 1968).

--Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑Writ jurisdiction‑Leave to appeal‑High Court dismissing petitioners writ petition on ground of having not disclosed dismissal of their petition by Settlement‑authorities and having thus not come before Court with clean hands‑‑Disclosure of ocher proceedings initiated by petitioners before Settlement authority being really necessary in overall context of case and petitioner having tried first to obtain admission of their writ petition and next an ultimate favourable order by keeping settlement proceedings hidden from High Court and order of Settlement authority being in operation in its own place due to being not in any manner challenged before High Court no ground, held, existed to interfere in case.

Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 31st October, 1981.

‑‑This is a petition against act order of the High Court dated 12th April, 1976, whereby a constitutional petition being W. P. 25‑R/68 filed by the petitioners was dismissed inter alia on the ground that the petitioners had not come to that Court with clean hands inasmuch as for the same reasons and grounds taken in writ petition, they had (on 10th June, 1967) filed a petition before the . Settlement Authorities under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, XLVII of 1958, which was pending before them and which fact was not disclosed by the petitioners at the time of the institution of the writ petition on 10‑1‑1968. The High Court further mentioned that application had been dismissed by the Settlement Authorities (on 11‑6‑1968) which fact was also not disclosed by the petitioners at the time of its final hearing and was rather pointed out by the respondents. We agree with the view aforesaid taken by the High Court on the peculiar facts and the circumstances of this case. The disclosure of the other proceedings which the petitioners had themselves initiated was really necessary in the overall context of the case and it appears that the effort of the petition was to secure, first an admission of the writ petition and then an ultimate favourable order by keeping the aforesaid proceedings hidden from the High Court. Again the said order dated 11‑6‑1968 is in operation in the field in its own place and was not challenged before the High Court .in any manner. Be that as it may we feel no ground to interfere in a case of this type, where the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction dismissed a petition, which suffered from the defects above stated.

2. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.

Appeal 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.