1993 PLP 86 (SCMR)
SUJANMAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Kazi ABDUL HAI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 86 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SUJANMAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Kazi ABDUL HAI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 86 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 86 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 86 (SCMR) (SUJANMAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Kazi ABDUL HAI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ahmad Yousuf Ali Razvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts.199 & 185(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Ground of laches being urged before Supreme Court, was not at all raised before High Court which allowed the petition‑‑‑Where High Court, impliedly condoning laches, if any, considered it fit to allow the petition on merits, no exception could be taken to it. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review of judgment/order‑‑‑Order of dismissal of identical appeals passed by High Court on ground of laches was upheld by the Supreme Court, while present petition was allowed by the High Court as also by the Supreme Court‑‑‑Judgment of Supreme Court in identical appeals should have been produced at the time of hearing of the present petition to show that those appeals and present petition were identical in nature and there was no distinguishing feature between the two‑‑‑Such judgments having not been produced, no case was made out for review of judgment.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for review of the order, dated 23‑4‑1991 passed in Civil Petition No.354‑K of 1990.
2. The only ground urged in support of the petition was that the High Court failed to consider the question of laches, as the petition was filed several years after the transfer of the property. By the order in question this Court held that it was within the discretion of the High Court to condone laches, if any. It was further held that in view of the following observation made by the High Court, such a plea, even if raised, could have been repelled: "The petitioner was running from pillar to post, but he was not heard. The order Annexure "A" shows that some of the properties transferred to petitioner for which the entire consideration was paid were also resumed illegally. In the present case also only a paltry sum of Rs.50 was outstanding against the petitioner and no person possessed of his senses would get his transfer cancelled only due to non‑payment of this nominal amount."
3. Now, in support of this review petition the learned counsel for the petitioner . submits that this Court had dismissed 6 Civil Appeals, being Nos.321‑K of 1986 to 326‑K of 1986, upholding the order of the High Court of Sindh passed in 6 Constitution Petitions dismissing the same on the ground of laches and in support of the submission a copy of the judgment dated 23‑4‑1990 has been produced.
4. Now, firstly in the judgment of the 6 appeals the order of dismissing the petitions on the ground of laches was upheld by this Court. In the present case the ground of laches was not at all raised before the High Court and the petition was allowed. Suffice it would be to say that each case is to be decided on its own merits. If the High Court considered fit to allow the petition on merits and impliedly condoned the lahces, if any, no exception could be taken to it. Secondly, the copy of the judgment in the 6 appeals should have been produced at the time of hearing the petition, as the judgment in 6 appeals had already been passed and it should have been shown that the matter in the petition and in the 6 appeals was identical and there were no distinguishing features between the two. But this was not done. No case for review is, therefore, made out. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition. A.A./S‑708/S Review dismissed.