1989 PLP 1087 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioners who approached the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction for the second time, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10‑12‑1983 whereby their petition was dismissed and also appeal against such dismissal. In the first round, their Constitutional petition was dismissed on 26th of March, 1983. They preferred no further relief against it, but filed another Constitutional petition on the same subject which was dismissed by the High Court in limine. The High Court observed as follows:‑‑ "The further argument of the learned counsel that the previous writ petition having been dismissed on a technical ground the present writ petition was not barred, has also not impressed me. It is to be remembered that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is discretionary and the conduct of a petitioner is a relevant consideration for exercise of discretion. I am not inclined to disturb the allotment of the respondents after a delay of ten years. The petitioners are to blame themselves in failing to seek timely remedies and in not agitating against the impugned order, dated 5‑9‑72 by way, of their appeal or revision before the Officers in the hierarchy of the Settlement Department." Appeal was dismissed with the following observations:‑‑ "The appellants had sought this Khasra number in the previous writ petition bearing No.1039/R of 1973 and their efforts failed when the writ petition was dismissed on 26‑3‑1983. The proper thing for the appellants was to take further proceedings in that matter, if they were interested in seeking the allotment of the aforesaid Khasra number. Filing of the second writ petition was not called for and has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that it suffered from laches. The impugned order in the writ petition was passed on 5‑9‑1972 when the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises was filed on 5‑7‑1983. The other consideration that weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the allotment of the respondents, after more than 10 years, cannot be interfered with. This too was perfectly a valid consideration to be taken into account." Raja Abdul Razzaque, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioners contends that it was a technical objection which should not have stood m the way of doing substantial justice and granting the relief which the petitioners rightly deserved. We have been taken through the record and find that the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and there is no legal justification for reopening E the matter when the petitioners' earlier reconciled themselves with the. decision, referred to above. No ground is made out and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑769/8.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Leave to appeal refused.