1977 PLP 324 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ARSALA KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1977 PLP 324 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Art. 199‑caches‑Condonation of delay‑‑History‑sheet of first respondent opened without notice to him and on being informed of such state of affairs such respondent filing writ petition praying for declaration of illegality of such transaction‑‑‑Content on that petition having been filed after delay of 14 years ought to have teen treated: by High Court as barred by laches Held : Question of condonation of delay within discretion of High Court rarely and reluctantly interfered with by Supreme Court-History‑sheet having been opened without notice question of laches depends upon date on which first respondent learnt of its opening‑Averments of first respondent if vague, petitioners ought to have asked for particulars in clarification Such not having been done, High Court left with no material to hold writ petition barred by laches.‑caches‑Condonation of delay. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ARSALA KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 324 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 324 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Art. 199‑caches‑Condonation of delay‑‑History‑sheet of first respondent opened without notice to him and on being informed of such state of affairs such respondent filing writ petition praying for declaration of illegality of such transaction‑‑‑Content on that petition having been filed after delay of 14 years ought to have teen treated: by High Court as barred by laches Held : Question of condonation of delay within discretion of High Court rarely and reluctantly interfered with by Supreme Court-History‑sheet having been opened without notice question of laches depends upon date on which first respondent learnt of its opening‑Averments of first respondent if vague, petitioners ought to have asked for particulars in clarification Such not having been done, High Court left with no material to hold writ petition barred by laches.‑caches‑Condonation of delay. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 324 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ARSALA KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Additional Advocate‑General, Sind instructed by S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Nasiruddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Y. A. Kidwai Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 17th September 1976.
- According to the learned Additional Advocate‑General, the history‑sheet of respondent No. 1 wag opened in 1961 because he had been convicted several times. But the Additional Advocate‑General very fairly conceded that this was without notice to the first respondent. Now the first respon dent's claim in. his writ petition was that case had been filed against him is 1975 for which he had approached the High Court for relief and further that he had learnt of the opening of the history‑sheet only when he had been called by telephone to the police station. Although the averments are vague, on the whole, it seems to us that according to the petition, the first respondent had learnt in 1975 that the history‑sheet had been opened against him, hence the writ petition, which was pressed on the ground that the history‑sheet had been opened without giving notice to the first respondent. The petitioners contested the petition and relied on the fact that the first respondent had been convicted on several occasions prior to and after the opening of the history‑sheet against him. Unfortunately, the pleadings are not available, but it would appear from the judgment under appeal that the respondent's reply was, that his appeals against all the convictions and orders against him had been allowed. Therefore, the learned Judges of the High Court observed that no difficulty would have arisen, if the petitioners had given a notice to the first respondent before the opening of the history‑sheet against him. However as the history sheet had been opened in 1961, the petitioners had also opposed the writ petition can the ground of delay, and the High Court had repelled this plea with the observation that the action under the history‑sheet against the first respondent had only been taken in 1975 and that the cause of action of the respondent was a continuing cause of action. Accordingly, they allowed the writ petition. Hence this petition for leave.
- The learned Additional Advocate‑General's next submission was that as the writ petition was filed after a delay of 14 years, it was barred by laches, but the burden of this plea was on the petitioners both because the question of condoning the delay was within the discretion of the High Court and because the history‑sheet had been opened without notice to the first respondent. And apart from the reluctance to interfere in discretionary orders, as the history‑sheet was opened without notice, the question of laches would depend upon the date on which the first respondent had learnt of the opening of the history‑sheet. And the averments in the writ petition's suggest, on the whole, that he had acquired this knowledge in 1975 some time before he filed the writ petition. It is true that the relevant averments are vague, but as the petitioners (who were the respondents in the High Court) opposed the writ petition, they should have asked for particulars.) As they did not, there was no material before the Court on which it could be held that the writ petition was barred by such laches as would have disentitled the first respondent to relief. The case is, therefore, not a fit case for the grant of leave and the petition is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind do Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 2nd March 1976, in Constitutional Petition No. 1098 of 1975). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ Art. 199‑caches‑Condonation of delay‑‑History‑sheet of first respondent opened without notice to him and on being informed of such state of affairs such respondent filing writ petition praying for declaration of illegality of such transaction‑‑‑Content on that petition having been filed after delay of 14 years ought to have teen treated: by High Court as barred by laches Held : Question of condonation of delay within discretion of High Court rarely and reluctantly interfered with by Supreme Court-History‑sheet having been opened without notice question of laches depends upon date on which first respondent learnt of its opening‑Averments of first respondent if vague, petitioners ought to have asked for particulars in clarification Such not having been done, High Court left with no material to hold writ petition barred by laches.‑[caches‑Condonation of delay].
Judgment & Decree
Art. 199‑caches‑Condonation of delay‑‑History‑sheet of first respondent opened without notice to him and on being informed of such state of affairs such respondent filing writ petition praying for declaration of illegality of such transaction‑‑‑Content on that petition having been filed after delay of 14 years ought to have teen treated: by High Court as barred by laches Held : Question of condonation of delay within discretion of High Court rarely and reluctantly interfered with by Supreme Court-History‑sheet having been opened without notice question of laches depends upon date on which first respondent learnt of its opening‑Averments of first respondent if vague, petitioners ought to have asked for particulars in clarification Such not having been done, High Court left with no material to hold writ petition barred by laches.‑[caches‑Condonation of delay]. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Additional Advocate‑General, Sind instructed by S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. S. Nasiruddin, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Y. A. Kidwai Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing : 17th September 1976. DORAB PATAL, J.‑This petition fir leave has been filed against judgment of a Division Bench of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court by which the learned Judges of the High Court allowed the writ petition of respondent No. l and gave this respondent a declaration that the history‑sheet opened against him by the Baghdadi Police Station, Karachi was without lawful authority. According to the learned Additional Advocate‑General, the history‑sheet of respondent No. 1 wag opened in 1961 because he had been convicted several times. But the Additional Advocate‑General very fairly conceded that this was without notice to the first respondent. Now the first respon dent's claim in. his writ petition was that case had been filed against him is 1975 for which he had approached the High Court for relief and further that he had learnt of the opening of the history‑sheet only when he had been called by telephone to the police station. Although the averments are vague, on the whole, it seems to us that according to the petition, the first respondent had learnt in 1975 that the history‑sheet had been opened against him, hence the writ petition, which was pressed on the ground that the history‑sheet had been opened without giving notice to the first respondent. The petitioners contested the petition and relied on the fact that the first respondent had been convicted on several occasions prior to and after the opening of the history‑sheet against him. Unfortunately, the pleadings are not available, but it would appear from the judgment under appeal that the respondent's reply was, that his appeals against all the convictions and orders against him had been allowed. Therefore, the learned Judges of the High Court observed that no difficulty would have arisen, if the petitioners had given a notice to the first respondent before the opening of the history‑sheet against him. However as the history sheet had been opened in 1961, the petitioners had also opposed the writ petition can the ground of delay, and the High Court had repelled this plea with the observation that the action under the history‑sheet against the first respondent had only been taken in 1975 and that the cause of action of the respondent was a continuing cause of action. Accordingly, they allowed the writ petition. Hence this petition for leave. The learned Additional Advocate‑General's next submission was that as the writ petition was filed after a delay of 14 years, it was barred by laches, but the burden of this plea was on the petitioners both because the question of condoning the delay was within the discretion of the High Court and because the history‑sheet had been opened without notice to the first respondent. And apart from the reluctance to interfere in discretionary orders, as the history‑sheet was opened without notice, the question of laches would depend upon the date on which the first respondent had learnt of the opening of the history‑sheet. And the averments in the writ petition's suggest, on the whole, that he had acquired this knowledge in 1975 some time before he filed the writ petition. It is true that the relevant averments are vague, but as the petitioners (who were the respondents in the High Court) opposed the writ petition, they should have asked for particulars.) As they did not, there was no material before the Court on which it could be held that the writ petition was barred by such laches as would have disentitled the first respondent to relief. The case is, therefore, not a fit case for the grant of leave and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.