1986 PLP 2046(1) (CLC)
Mst. KAREEM BIBI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIRAN and others -Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2046(1) (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. KAREEM BIBI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIRAN and others -Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2046(1) (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2046(1) (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2046(1) (CLC) (Mst. KAREEM BIBI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIRAN and others -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Petitioner.
- Rana Abdur Rahim Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199--Delay in filing writ petition--Petition was filed after 10 months of passing of impugned order--Although delay in filing petition was palpable enough to attract attention, yet petitioner did not care to explain that delay even before High Court--Petition dismissed on ground of laches. [Laches].
Judgment & Decree
Art. 199--Delay in filing writ petition--Petition was filed after 10 months of passing of impugned order--Although delay in filing petition was palpable enough to attract attention, yet petitioner did not care to explain that delay even before High Court--Petition dismissed on ground of laches. [Laches]. Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Petitioner. Rana Abdur Rahim Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1985. Through this constitutional petition Mst Kareem Bibi wants this Court to declare the order, dated 22-6-1974 of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) with the powers of Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches. I need not set out the facts in detail. I find that the writ petition suffersi from laches in that the impugned order was passed on 22-6-1974; he applied for copy of the order on 4-12-1974; the copy was supplied to him on the same day and that he filed this writ petition on 26-4-1975. Although the delay was palpable enough to attract the attention yet the petitioner did not care to explain this delay. Even before me they learned counsel has failed to give any explanation of this delay. For what has been said above the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.