1969 PLP 125 (SCMR)

Muhammad Ishaq Farooqi, 4dvocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 31st October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioners were confirmed certain evacuee agricultural lands on the 18th September 1957, by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Narowal, District Sialkot but these lands were on the 4th July 1961, cancelled and allotted to the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 by another Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner. The petitioners challenged this order by a writ petition under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order. This was dismissed on the 28th September 1966, on the basis of a concession made by the learned counsel then appearing for the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners had already got the land in dispute. The petitioners sought to have the said petition restored on the ground that their special attorney, one Alan Din, had in collusion with the respondents Nos. 2 to 7, given in correct instructions to the learned counsel. This application was, however, dismissed on the 7th December 1967. They then filed a fresh petition under Article 98 of the Constitution on the 7th February 1968. This was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench or the High Court of West Pakistan on the 26th February 1968, on the ground that a second application for an order in the nature of a writ did not lie on the same facts. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal and it is contended on their behalf that since their first petition was not disposed of on merits but only on the basis of a concession made by their counsel, a second writ petition would lie. The first writ petition, as already pointed out, was dismissed on the basis of a concession. It is not disputed that such a concession was made or that such a concession was made on proper instructions but all that said is that the special Attorney of the petitioners fraudulently gave wrong instructions to the counsel. This cannot be a ground for a second writ petition, particularly, after an application for the restoration of the first writ petition had been heard and dismissed on merits. In any event, it seems to us that the second writ petition was bound to fail on the ground of laches. It sought in February 1968 to challenge an order made in July 1961. Even if it be conceded that they were not aware of the concession made by their counsel at the relevant time, they certainly came to know of it when they came to file an application for the restoration of the writ petition in 1967. There is no explanation why even after the dismissal of those Miscellaneous applications in December 1967, they waited for another two months to move a second application. For these reasons we are of the opinion that there are no merits in this petition and accordingly, dismiss the same. Leave refused.