YAQUB SHAH vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PUNJAB) AND Other
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of a suit regarding the transfer of a property. The petitioner claimed to have filed a KNCH form in 1959 for the transfer of a house in Rawalpindi but took no action for fourteen years until the property was disposed of via public auction in 1973. Subsequent challenges, including an appeal and a constitutional petition, were unsuccessful. The petitioner argued that because the prior constitutional petition was dismissed in limine solely on the grounds of laches, a subsequent civil suit was not barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's conduct, specifically the inordinate delay in pursuing his claim, disentitled him to any equitable relief. Consequently, the Court found the case unfit for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The judgment reinforces the principle that a litigant's conduct, particularly unreasonable delay and inaction, serves as a valid ground for denying judicial relief, regardless of the procedural history of prior litigation.
- Does the dismissal of a constitutional petition on the ground of laches bar a subsequent civil suit regarding the same subject matter?
- Can a petitioner who delays action for fourteen years regarding a property transfer claim relief against a public auction?
- Does the conduct of a petitioner, specifically inordinate delay, disentitle them to relief in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13-11-1982 whereby a civil revision petition filed against the dismissal of the suit and its affirmance in first appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claimed to have filed in 1959 KNCH form for the transfer of House AA-1158 Mohallah Akalgarh Rawalpindi. He took action in respect of it after fourteen years when the house was disposed of in public auction on 2`-1-1973. His appeal and inordinately delayed constitutional petition challenging the auction failed. He then filed a civil suit which was dismissed. So was the appeal and revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the constitutional petition was dismissed in limine and only on the ground of laches, a civil suit was not barred.
4. The conduct of the petitioner disentitled him to any relief. For the same reason we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed.