2005 PLP 119 (SCMR)
AHMED and 25 others — Applicants Versus GHAMA and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 119 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | AHMED and 25 others — Applicants Versus GHAMA and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 119 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 119 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 119 (SCMR) (AHMED and 25 others — Applicants Versus GHAMA and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th August, 2004.
- ----Art. 185(3)---Petition dismissed in default---Restoration---Ailment of Advocate on Record---Scope---Application for restoration was barred by 108 days and no plausible justification could be furnished on the basis whereof such an inordinate delay could be condoned---Serious ailment of Advocate on Record did not constitute a valid ground for condonation of such inordinate delay---Respondents could not be deprived of their valuable and legal rights which they had acquired due to laches and negligence---Petitioners failed to pursue their case vigilantly vigorously and woke up from the deep slumber after 108 days and thus Supreme Court refused to ignore such negligence without sufficient justification-- Application was dismissed.
- Sardar Liaqat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants.
- JAVED IQBAL, J.---The Civil Miscellaneous Application bearing No.786 of 2004, preferred on behalf of petitioners for the restoration of Civil Petition No.711 of 2002 which was dismissed in default on 20-11-2003 revolve around the sole ground that the learned counsel and petitioners could not be informed by the Advocate-on -Record regarding fixation of the date and resultantly on the date of hearing, they both remained absent. It is an admitted feature of the case that the civil miscellaneous application filed for the restoration of civil petition is barred by 108 days for which no plausible justification could be furnished on the basis whereof such an inordinate delay could be condoned. The serious ailment of Mr. Anwar H. Mir, learned Advocate-on-Record does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of such an inordinate delay. Respondents should not be deprived of their valuable and legal rights which they have acquired due to laches and negligence. In this regard, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases titled "Rehmatullah and others v. Ulas Khan and others 1968 SCMR 975, Abdul Hamid v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1968 SCMR 120, Rahim Bux v. Settlement Authorities and others 1968 SCMR 78, Ahmad Din v. Mst. Rasul Bibi 1968 SCMR 843. There is no cavil with the proposition that existence of laches is sufficient for dismissal in limine of petition. In this regard if any authority is needed, reference can be made to cases titled Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division and others 1973 SCMR 422, Shahbaz Khan Mohammad v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another 1975 SCMR 4. We have absolutely no hesitation in our mind that the petitioners failed to pursue their case vigilantly, vigorously and woke up from the deep slumber after 108 days which cannot be ignored without sufficient justification which is badly lacking in this case. The civil miscellaneous application being meritless is hereby dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185(3)
Petition dismissed in default
Scope
Application for restoration was barred by 108 days and no plausible justification could be furnished on the basis whereof such an inordinate delay could be condoned
Serious ailment of Advocate on Record did not constitute a valid ground for condonation of such inordinate delay
Respondents could not be deprived of their valuable and legal rights which they had acquired due to laches and negligence
Petitioners failed to pursue their case vigilantly vigorously and woke up from the deep slumber after 108 days and thus Supreme Court refused to ignore such negligence without sufficient justification-- Application was dismissed. Rehmatullah and others v. Was Khan and. others 1968 SCMR 975, Abdul Hamid v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others.,1968 SCMR 120, Rahim Bux v. Settlement Authorities and others 1968 SCMR 78 and Ahmad Din v. Mst. Rasul Bibi 1968 SCMR 843 rel.
Art. 185(3)
Constitutional petition
Effect
Existence of laches is sufficient for dismissal of petition in limine. Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division and others 1973 SCMR 422 and Shahbaz Khan Mohammad v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another 1975 SCMR 4 rel. Sardar Liaqat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
The Civil Miscellaneous Application bearing No.786 of 2004, preferred on behalf of petitioners for the restoration of Civil Petition No.711 of 2002 which was dismissed in default on 20-11-2003 revolve around the sole ground that the learned counsel and petitioners could not be informed by the Advocate-on -Record regarding fixation of the date and resultantly on the date of hearing, they both remained absent. It is an admitted feature of the case that the civil miscellaneous application filed for the restoration of civil petition is barred by 108 days for which no plausible justification could be furnished on the basis whereof such an inordinate delay could be condoned. The serious ailment of Mr. Anwar H. Mir, learned Advocate-on-Record does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of such an inordinate delay. Respondents should not be deprived of their valuable and legal rights which they have acquired due to laches and negligence. In this regard, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases titled "Rehmatullah and others v. Ulas Khan and others 1968 SCMR 975, Abdul Hamid v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1968 SCMR 120, Rahim Bux v. Settlement Authorities and others 1968 SCMR 78, Ahmad Din v. Mst. Rasul Bibi 1968 SCMR
843. There is no cavil with the proposition that existence of laches is sufficient for dismissal in limine of petition. In this regard if any authority is needed, reference can be made to cases titled Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division and others 1973 SCMR 422, Shahbaz Khan Mohammad v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another 1975 SCMR
4. We have absolutely no hesitation in our mind that the petitioners failed to pursue their case vigilantly, vigorously and woke up from the deep slumber after 108 days which cannot be ignored without sufficient justification which is badly lacking in this case. The civil miscellaneous application being meritless is hereby dismissed. M.H./A-85/S Application dismissed.