WASEEM GONDAL vs NAEEM SADIQ and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner against a revisional order regarding the custody (Superdari) of recovered currency. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition in limine, considering both the maintainability of the petition and the conduct of the petitioner. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner's conduct was not above board. Specifically, the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions of the Superdari order granted by the Judicial Magistrate, despite being given ample opportunity and notice over a period of three years. The Court affirmed that a party seeking equitable relief must demonstrate clean conduct and compliance with judicial directions. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's dismissal, emphasizing that a litigant who disregards court orders and remains non-compliant cannot expect the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in their favor.
- Can a petitioner who fails to comply with court-imposed conditions for the custody of property seek relief through a writ petition?
- Does the conduct of a petitioner, such as failing to appear in court despite notice, justify the dismissal of a writ petition?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with an order where the petitioner has demonstrated a lack of bona fide conduct?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- This petition is directed against the order, dated 21-5-2001 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,8456 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine being not maintainable as well as on the ground of conduct of the petitioner demonstrated by him subsequent to the Superdari order secured on 4-3-2000 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Section 30, Lahore.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that F.I.R. No,41 of 2000 was registered under sections 452/380/448/420/ 468/471/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Naseer Abad, District Lahore. During investigation, US $ 9,000 was recovered. The petitioner, Waseem Gondal, made an application on 4-3-2000 praying for Superdari of the above amount. The Judicial Magistrate, on the same day, allowed the Superdari subject to production of above amount before the Court. The same was assailed by respondent No,1 through Criminal Revision No,135 of 2000, which was accepted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, through his order, dated 21-3-2001. The above order was challenged by Ch. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, father of the present petitioner, through the above writ petition, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through his order, dated 21-5-2001, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material placed on record with their assistance. We do not want to dilate on the merits of the case as this exercise may prejudice the case of either party. However, one thing is very clear from the documents on record that conduct of the petitioner was not above board. The learned revisional Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court directed the petitioner to come forward and honour the condition mentioned in the Superdari order. The documents demonstrate that he is living abroad and in spite of notice he never attended the Court. The order of Superdari was passed about three years back and till today the petitioner has not honoured the direction of the Courts. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order.
4. 'Resultantly, the instant petition being devoid of any merit and force is hereby dismissed and .