2002 PLP 417 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Laches‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed against judgment and decree after two years of its passing was, to be hit by the principle of laches. Asif Mehmood Cheema for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Through the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 5‑9‑1995 and subsequent execution proceedings with a prayer that the same may be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and having no legal effect.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the present Constitutional petition are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,35,325 against the petitioner before the respondent No‑2, who ordered to register the suit and the notices were also issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, on 13‑11‑1993, the case was transferred to the Special Court Banking on the strength of some judgment. The writ petition then narrates that subsequently the respondent No.2 again took up the matter on the basis of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 15602 of 1993, decided on 31‑5‑1994. The suit was decreed by the respondent No‑3 on 5‑9‑1995 and the execution application for the enforcement of the decree was also filed by the petitioner.

3. The notices were issued to the respondents for today, but nobody has entered appearance, as such, the respondent

Bank is proceeded ex parte.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgment and decree dated 5‑9‑1995, is without jurisdiction and not executable, therefore, the subsequent execution proceedings are also without jurisdiction.

5. The present writ petition was filed on 31‑5‑1997, through which the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree passed as far back as on 5‑9‑1995. It is also evident' from the prayer portion of the writ petition that the petitioner has requested this Court that the judgment and decree dated 5‑9‑1995 may be declared without jurisdiction and having no legal effect. Admittedly, the petitioner did not assail the said judgment and decree through the filing of the appeal, which was provided under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance. After the passing of the decree, the petitioner felt satisfied and as such did not challenge the judgment and decree, either through the filing of the appeal provided under the law or through filing of any writ petition. The petitioner acquiesced over the matter and as such bound by the terms of the decree. After the lapse of nearly two years, the petitioner has agitated' the case, which is past and closed transaction and the proceedings were finally terminated with the passing of the judgment and decree. Now the present writ petition is not maintainable when a right of 'appeal at an appropriate, time within the stipulated period has not been availed.

6. Another aspect of the case is that in the present writ petition, filed on 31‑5‑1997, judgment and decree dated 5‑9‑1997 have been challenged and, therefore, the present writ petition is hit by the principle of laches and on‑this count too, the same cannot be entertained.

7. In view of the above reasons and conclusions, I am not inclined to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction, writ petition is not maintainable, devoid of force, thus, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. As the respondent‑Bank is not represented, therefore, the office is directed to send the copy of this, order to respondent No. 1 immediately. S.A.K./Z‑66/L Petition dismissed.