THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY FOR PAKISTAN vs THE ADDITIONAL
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court on the grounds of laches. The petitioner sought to challenge this dismissal by introducing a document for the first time during the Supreme Court proceedings, arguing that its prior absence was the reason for the High Court's adverse decision. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation for why the document was not presented before the High Court. Faced with this judicial stance, the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition with the liberty to pursue a civil suit instead. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of the petition. The Court held that while the petitioner is free to initiate a civil suit to vindicate their rights, any such litigation remains subject to the applicable Law of Limitation and other relevant statutory provisions. The Court did not disturb the High Court's findings on laches, effectively concluding the constitutional petition while preserving the petitioner's right to seek alternative civil remedies.
- Can a petitioner introduce new evidence in the Supreme Court that was not presented before the High Court to challenge a dismissal based on laches?
- Does the withdrawal of a writ petition with permission to file a civil suit exempt the subsequent suit from the Law of Limitation?
- Is a petitioner entitled to withdraw a petition in the Supreme Court after failing to justify the omission of evidence in the lower court?
ORDER
1. ' G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.- The writ petition of the petitioner had been' dismissed by the High Court owing to laches. The learned counsel, however, referred to a document. Which he placed before us for the first time in these proceedings and contended that if the said document had been placed before the High Court perhaps the petition would not have been thrown out on the ground of laches.
2. ' We are afraid, there is no force in the contention urged by the learned counsel. He has not explained as to how the said document could not be placed before the High Court. And when faced with this situation, he expressed his desire to withdraw the petition with permission to file a Civil Suit, if necessary.
3. ' This petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner may, if so advised, file a civil suit to vindicate his right, but it is needless to say that his suit would be governed by the Law of Limitation, as well as other laws.