1987 PLP 2352 (CLC)

Constitutional Petition No. S‑126 of 1986, decided on 4th November, 1986. ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Laches‑‑Constitutional petition, maintainability of‑‑Where constitutional petition filed by petitioner was found to be suffering from laches and application filed for condonation of delay also was lacking in bona fide, such petition alongwith application for condonation of delay was dismissed in limine. Muhammad Yousuf for Petitioner. By the judgment, dated 21‑7‑1985, IXth Civil and Family Judge (East), Karachi, decreed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal against the decree, which was dismissed by the judgment and decree, dated 26th January, 1986. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. There is an application for condonation of delay. The reason given by the petitioner in support of the application is that he had gone to India and returned in the month of September, 1986, and then he enquired from his advocate about his family appeal and his advocate informed him that the same had been dismissed on 26‑1‑1986, and then he advised the advocate to file the Writ Petition. He has further stated that his Advocate had applied for certified copy of the judgment passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge and other documents. The copyist did not communicate the estimated cost of the other documents to his advocate, as provided in Rule 324 of the Sind Civil Court Rules. Reference is made to Rule 322(1) of the Sind Civil Court Rules. From the record, it appears that the appellant had applied for certified copy of the judgment on 9‑10‑1986, and the estimated fee was deposited on 11‑10‑1986. The copy was made ready on 14‑10‑1986 and the same was supplied to him on 15‑10‑1986. T he learned counsel states that he had also earlier applied for a certified copy, but the same was not granted. Since reference is made to Rule 324 of the Sind Civil Court Rules, which implies that the earlier application was rejected for non‑payment of deposit of fee. I feel that even if I assume that the statement is true, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not interested in obtaining the copy, because the petitioner was out of country. He became interested only after the petitioner returned from India. I may state that the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes me to review the evidence which has already been considered by the appellate Court, which cannot be done in writ jurisdiction. I think that the application is lacking in bona fide. I, therefore, dismiss this petition, on account of laches, in limine together withIA C.M.As. No.415 of 1986, No.416 of 1986 and No.417 of 1986. H.B.T./A‑99/K Petition dismissed.