1984 PLP 796 (MLD)

Art. 9--Laches--Constitutional petition abated in 1974 --Petitioners choosing to file fresh civil suit and prosecuted remedy before civil Courts till 1979--Petitioner having failed, filing fresh constitutional petition in 1981 seeking decision on same grounds as urged in previous constitutional petition--Undue delay not explained--Petition dismissed on ground of laches. Usman Ghani Rashid for Petitioners. Abdul Aziz Khan and G.M. Qureshi for Respondents Nos.3 to

5. Date of hearing: 29th March, 1984. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--The petitioners, legal representatives of one Syed Murad Ali Shah, had filed this petition seeking a declaration that the notice dated 4-6-1981 of respondent No.3 addressed to petitioner No.1 and respondents Nos.4 and 5 had been issued without lawful authority and an injunction had also been prohibiting the respondents from taking any action pursuant to the said notice dated 4-6-1981. Respondent No.l in this petition is the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Sind, Hyderabad; respondent No.2 is Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sind; respondent No.3 is Zamindari Co-operative Bank Limited; and respondents Nos.4 and 5 are Shah Muhammad and Mukhtiar Ahmad sons of late Noor Muhammad Soomro. In para.1 of this petition it is mentioned that the petitioners are heirs/legal representatives of Syed Noor Muhammad Shah. In para.2, after mentioning that the said Syed Noor Muhammad Shah had filed Writ Petition No. 659 of 1969 and that the same was admitted to regular hearing on 27-11-1969, the entire memo. of Petition No. 659 of 1969 has been reproduced. In para.3 of the memo. of this petition it is stated that the said petition came to be dismissed as abated on 7-11-1974 on the ground that the counsel for the respondents in that earlier petition had stated that petitioner Noor Muhammad Shah had died 2i years earlier. In para.4 of the memo. of this petition it is mentioned that the present petitioners filed a Civil Suit No.65 of 1975 in the Court of .Senior Civil Judge. Nawabshah which was dismissed on the grounds of lack of mandatory notice and lack of jurisdiction and then an appeal and revision of tile petitioners also failed but a review application bearing No.1 of 1980 was pending in this Court. In para.5 of the petition it is mentioned that the proceedings in the civil Court initiated by the petitioners were ill-advised. In para.6 of this petition the order dated 27-11-1969 passed in the earlier Petition No. 659 of 1969, admitting that petition to regular hearing, has been reproduced and in para. 7 it has been mentioned that respondent No.3 is now taking coercive measures against the petitioners and after this comes the prayer clause. We have heard Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, who has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 Mr. G. M. Qureshi, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos.4 and 5.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no decision was given on merits in the previous Petition No. 659 of 1969, which had been admitted to regular hearing but which was dismissed on 7-11-1974 as having abated. What the petitioner wants in this petition, as is obvious from a recital of the memo. of petition is that relief, which had been sought in the previous petition, may be granted in the present petition. In fact it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that present petition may be treated as a petition for restoration of the previous petition. The cause of action for filing the previous constitutional petition had arisen before 1969 and when it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition suffers from Inches, it was contended firstly that after dismissal of the previous petition on 7-11-1974 the petitioners were ill-advised to take proceedings in a civil Court and secondly that a fresh cause of action had accrued in view of the notice, dated 4-6-1981 issued by the respondent No.3. According to the learned counsel it is a continuing cause of action. We find no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. We tire of tile view that the present petition suffers from laches. It is obvious that the petitioners were aware of the filing of the previous petition and in spite of the fact that the previous petition had been admitted 'to regular hearing they chose to file a civil suit and prosecuted their remedies before the civil Court and then in any case we find from the counter-affidavit dated 14-9-1981 filed oil behalf of tile respondent No.3 that after dismissal of the Civil Suit No. 65 of 1975 filed by the petitioners the petitioners went in revision No. 50 of 1976, which revision was also dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, by his order dated 29-4-1979. After 29-4-1979 they waited for more than two years and then filed the present Constitutional Petition No. D-702 of 1981 on 23-7-1981. There is no explanation for the delay of over two years in filing this constitutional petition. AS observed earlier, in para. 4 of the memo. of the present constitutional petition it has been mentioned that the peti?tioners had filed a review petition which was pending in this Court bearing No. 1 of 1980. We have checked up from the office and we found that no, review application or revision application bearing No.l of 1980 had been filed by tile petitioners in this Court. It is apparent that a wrong statement about filing a review or revision application bearing No.1 of 1980 has been made by the petitioners as mentioned in para. 4 of the memo. of this petition. As regards the continuing cause of action, no ground has been urged about the invalidity or illegality of the notice dated 4-6-1981. The only purpose of reproducing the entire memo. of the previous petition in the body of the present constitutional petition was to seek a decision from this Court on the grounds taken in the previous constitutional petition.- As noticed hereinabove, the previous petition had been dismissed on 7-11-1974 and in spite being aware of the pendency and dismissal of the previous petition fresh petition had not been filed by the petitioners for nearly 7 years and even after dismissal of the revision, the petitioners did not take any action for over two years.

2. As a result, Constitutional Petition No 702 of 1981 suffer from laches and is dismissed with costs. M.I????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.