1992 PLP 1059 (SCMR)

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199 & 185(3)‑‑‑Order of returning Constitutional petition for removing defects‑‑‑Defects pointed out in objection sheet were not of such a nature that same could not be removed unless petition was returned‑‑‑Flagging of orders and page marking of index could have been done in the office itself by counsel for appellant‑‑‑Objections were also not raised as soon as Constitutional petition was filed‑‑‑Office on the other hand, itself regarded such defects so minor that it had tagged present Constitutional petition alongwith other petitions of similar nature‑‑‑Office of High Court was thus, itself at fault when it returned petition for refiling‑‑‑Petition thus did not suffer from laches when refiled in High Court‑‑‑Case was remanded to High Court .for disposal according to law. Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 10‑12‑1985 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Constitution petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. One Abdul Haq was allotted 30 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land in Chak No.123‑B/TDA in District Leiah by the Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer by way of adjustment. Abdul Haq sold this land to the appellant. One Syed Intezar Hussain Shah who was also seeking adjustment of land was claimant for the same land as had been given to Abdul Haq. He filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner and a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. Both were dismissed. Later, his sisters also filed appeals and revision petitions before the Board of Revenue claiming Khasra No.85/6 which was part of the land purchased by the appellant. They were also unsuccessful. However, the Additional Commissioner took this Khasra from the appellant on the ground that it had been acquired by the Government.

3. The orders of the revenue authorities gave rise to three Constitution petitions in the High Court; one of these was instituted by the appellant. The case of the appellant was that the Additional Combiner was misinformed when he held that Khasra No.85/6 had been acquired by the Government. However that may be, the office of the High Court tagged the three petitions together and placed them before the Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the other two petitions but made no order on the one preferred by the appellant. Soon thereafter the office of the High Court placed the Constitution petition of the appellant in the objection list. The objections were, as appears from the order of the High Court, that the impugned orders had not been flagged and the index had not been page marked the Constitution petition was received by counsel on 8‑10‑1984 but it was not re‑filed after complying with the objections till 17‑11‑1985. It was then placed before the Court. A learned Single; Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that it had been re‑filed with inordinate delay and that it suffered frog laches extending over a long period in instituting the writ petition. The appellant has now come in appeal to this Court.

4. Leave to appeal was granted with the following observations: "After hearing the learned counsel we are, prima facie of the view that the defects on account of which writ petition was, returned to the learned counsel were not such that it should have been returned. The learned counsel could have been asked to remove the defects in the office in the presence of the official concerned. Accordingly, if the basic order of returning the writ petition is found defective, illegal or improper, the subsequent order of dismissal of the writ petition relatable to the order of the returning thereof might also have to be set aside. This question and other questions raised in this petition require examination." After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that the defects pointed out in the objection‑sheet were not of a nature that these could not be removed unless the petition was returned back to the appellant or his counsel. The flagging of orders and page‑marking of the index could be done in the office itself by counsel for the appellant. Apart from that, these objections should have been raised as soon as the writ petition was filed. On the other hand the office itself regarded the defects so minor that it tagged the writ petition alongwith the other two which were duly placed in Court, We are, therefore, of the opinion that the office of the High Court itself was at fault when it returned the petition for re‑filing. In the circumstances we are unable to support the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the petition suffered from laches. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remand the writ petition to the High Court for disposal according to law. There will be no order as to costs. AA./F.‑226/S Order accordingly,