1980 PLP 667 (SCMR)
THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY FOR PAKISTAN-Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION
| Citation | 1980 PLP 667 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 3-Laches-Document sought to be placed for first time in proceedings on ground that if such document were placed before High Court perhaps writ petition would not have been thrown out on grounds of laches--No explanation given as to how such document could not be placed before High Court-Contention, held, has no force. -Laches. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, and G. Safdar Shah, JJ |
| Parties | THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY FOR PAKISTAN-Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 667 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 667 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 3-Laches-Document sought to be placed for first time in proceedings on ground that if such document were placed before High Court perhaps writ petition would not have been thrown out on grounds of laches--No explanation given as to how such document could not be placed before High Court-Contention, held, has no force. -Laches. bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, and G. Safdar Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 667 (SCMR) (THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY FOR PAKISTAN-Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 27th February, 1980.
- Syed Asad Hussain Zaidi, Advocate and Syed Inayat Hussain,
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 23-10-1978, passed in W. P. No. 681/1978). -- S. 3-Laches-Document sought to be placed for first time in proceedings on ground that if such document were placed before High Court perhaps writ petition would not have been thrown out on grounds of laches--No explanation given as to how such document could not be placed before High Court-Contention, held, has no force. -[Laches]. Syed Asad Hussain Zaidi, Advocate and Syed Inayat Hussain,
Judgment & Decree
Syed Asad Hussain Zaidi, Advocate and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 27th February, 1980. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J. The writ petition of the petitioner had been dismissed by the High Court owing to laches. The learned counsel, however, referred to a document, which he placed before us for the first time in these proceedings and contended that if the said document had been placed before the High Court perhaps the petition would not have been thrown out on the ground of laches. We are afraid, there is no force in the contention urged by the learned counsel. He has not explained as to how the said document could not be placed before the High Court. And when faced with this situation, he expressed his desire to withdraw the petition with permission to file a Civil Suit, if necessary. This petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner may, if so advised, file a civil suit to vindicate his right, but it is needless to say that his suit would be governed by the Law of Limitation, as well as other laws. Petition dismissed.