P L D 1987 Lahore 251 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR
| Citation | P L D 1987 Lahore 251 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Falak Slier, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1987 Lahore 251 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1987 Lahore 251 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Falak Slier, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1987 Lahore 251 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Sardar Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199-Maxim "one who seeks equity must do equity" Constitutional petition filed after a lapse of nearly eight months for which no rational explanation offered by petitioner-Conduct of petitioner throughout course of proceedings demonstrated, his propensity to prolong litigation and agony of spouse respondent Interference declined by High Court under constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has called in question order dated 18-2-1986, passed by respondent No. 1, refusing to restore the revision petition which was dismissed on account of default in appearance on 18-6-1985,
2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that respondent No. 2 made an application before respondent No. 3 for maintenance as wife of petitioner, vide Application No. 3‑MFL (MA)‑84 under section 9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner chose not to parti cipate in those proceedings and subsequently, vide order dated 23‑10‑1984 respondent No. 2 was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month for the period it was due. This order was impugned by petitioner in revision before respondent No.
1. This revision petition was dismissed in default on 18‑6‑1985. An application for the restoration of the same was dismissed by respondent No. 1 as no satisfactory explanation was advanced. Hence this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel.
4. This petition has been filed after a lapse of nearly eight months. I asked the learned counsel to explain this delay, to which he frankly conceded that there is no rational explanation which can be offered in this regard.
5. Apart from this, the conduct of the petitioner throughout the course of proceedings demonstrates his propensity to prolong the litigation and agony of his spouse i. e. respondent No.
2. Initially, petitioner preferred not to participate in the proceedings before respondent No. 3 and eventually proceedings were concluded ex parte. Then he preferred revision against that order before respondent No. 1 and that too, on the last date when the period of limitation prescribed by the statute was . exhausted. Thereafter, petitioner waited for a period of eight months for filing of this writ petition, which remained unexplained.
6. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, throughout the proceedings and inordinate delay for which no explanation has been offered despite specific query from this Court, I am not inclined to interfere. in constitutional jurisdiction. I am fortified in this view by legal maxim . e. "one who seeks equity must do equity". Therefore, this petition is dismissed in limine. M. B. A./M‑104/L Petition dismissed.