Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 697 and 698 of 1976, decided on 2nd December, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11‑5‑1976, in W.P. 148/R of 1975, and Review Application 19 of 1975 respectively).
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Writ petition suffering from laches Nothing available on record to explain long delay‑‑High Court's order dismissing Writ petition on ground of laches and delays suffered from no infirmity‑
Leave to appeal refused.
Mian Saeedur Rahman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Islamul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1980.
This order will dispose of two petitions being civil petition for special leave to Appeals Nos. 697 of 1976 and 698 of 1976.
2. The petitioners filed a constitutional petition being W.P. 148‑R of 1975 against an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 15‑10‑1960 and the last order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 27‑3‑1967. The writ petition was filed in the year 1975 and the High Court dismissed it on 11‑5‑1976 on the ground that it suffered from laches and delay. The petitioner has filed C.P. 697 of 1976 against the aforesaid order of the High Court. From the date above given the order of the High Court suffers from no infirmity particularly when there is nothing on the present record to explain the long period during which the petitioners never moved in the matter. C. P. No. 697 of 1976 which arises is consequently dismissed.
3. It may be stated that earlier a constitutional petition being W.P. 111‑R of 1970 was decided by the High Court in favour of the respondents on 25‑7‑197. The petitioners filed a Review Application bearing No. 19 of 1975 against it in' year 1975, which was also dismissed by the same common judgment passed in W.P. 148‑R of 1975 mentioned above. The petitioners have now filed Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal 698 of 1976 against it in this Court. The reasons given in the connected Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal 697 of 1976 hold good for this petition. The present petition is also dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer