Home Maxims & Terms Laches, Doctrine of meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Laches, Doctrine of

Laches, Doctrine of legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2022 SCMR 2096 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Scope

Litigant who sleeps on his rights has no right to claim relief.

2022 MLD 831 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent
Object, purpose and scopeDoctrine of laches is rooted in the wisdom that equity does not help the indolent

Same principle is applicable where plaintiff fails to pursue his claim assiduously by not appearing before Court on date fixed for proceedings in the matter.

2017 CLC 1361 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Definition

Laches is a French term which has been derived from (Law French, "remissness, slackness"); unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim; always an equitable one and in a way that prejudices party against whom relief is sought.

2017 CLC 1361 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
History

Chancery developed the doctrine that where the plaintiff in equity delayed beyond the period of the statute applicable at law, relief would be refused on the ground of laches even though no specific prejudice to the defendant was shown

Statutes of limitation in most states applying to suits in equity; despite, however, the doctrine still holds that even if the delay is for a shorter period of time than that of the statute, it may still bar equitable relief, if it is unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Laches, Doctrine of", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/39002

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Laches, Doctrine of"

PLC(CS)N 2021
Civil Appeal No.337 of 2018, decided on 14th February, 2019.

2021 P L C (C

TAIMOOR KHALID Versus MUHAMMAD AZEEM and 6 others

Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)
YLR 2018
W.P. No.469-M with C.M. No.825-M of 2017, decided on 1st August, 2017.

2018 Y L R 183

MOHAMMAD KARIM DURRANI through Legal Heir — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL through L.Rs. and another — Respondents

Court: Peshawar (Mingora Bench)
PLC(CS)N 2023
Writ Petition No.08 of 2018, decided on 19th September, 2019.

2023 P L C (C

SAEED ULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN and others

Court: Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan
PLC(CS) 2025
Constitution Petition No. D-597 of 2025, decided on 30th April, 2025.

2025 P L C (C

SALMAN AHMED and 7 others Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Education and Literacy Department,

Court: Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)
MLD 2020
2019-September-12

2020 M L D 1211

GAMAN and others — Petitioners/Defendants Versus MUREED HUSSAIN and others — Respondents/Plaintiffs

Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)
CLC 2017
merits after hearing both the parties---Validity---Two legal modes were provided to see as to whether the lis/judicial matter was brought before the court of competent jurisdiction within the prescribed period of limitation: According to the Limitation Act, 1908 hard and fast rules were provided to approach the court for redressal of grievances within stipulated/given time and if it was not done so and no reasonable cause was shown to justify the delay, the party approaching court with delay could be non-suited; law of limitation was subservient law as compared to constitutional provisions, therefore constitutional petition had to be taken up under the principle of laches---Principle of laches was based on the principle of equity, good conscious and natural justice---Laches, according to its simplest meaning, was negligence committed by person in observance of duty or opportunity, undue delay in asserting legal right or privileges---Failure of litigant to do something which had not been done within reasonable time must be justified---Justification put forward for the petitioner was not even plausible and reasonable cause to avoid implication of laches---Continuous non-applicability of counsel for the petitioner, during the pendency of constitutional petition, also showed non-seriousness of the petitioner---Petitioner by his conduct during the pendency of the constitutional petition and by adopting another mode of private arrangement for redressal of his grievances had disentitled him to claim or seek that the petition was not hit under the principle of laches---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly

2017 C L C 1361

MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 5 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLR 2018
Constitution Petition No.D-3519 of 2015, decided on 28th April, 2017.

2018 Y L R 397

MUHAMMAD FAIZAN AMJAD — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, KARACHI and 3 others — Respondents

Court: Sindh
MLD 2015
2013-July-6

2015 M L D 143

MUHAMMAD MUBEEN KHAN — Petitioner Versus FARZAND BEGUM and 8 others — Respondents

Court: High Court (AJ&K)
CLC 2008
Civil Appeal No.29 of 2005, decided on 21st November, 2006.

2008 C L C 1662

TAHIR MAHMOOD KHAN and 13 others — Appellants Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT and 3 others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)
PLC(CS)N 2020
Constitutional Petition No.D-5083 of 2013, decided on 12th November, 2018.

2020 P L C (C

ABDUL REHMAN Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION and another

Court: Sindh High Court