1991 SCMR 364

AZIZ DIN And Another vs QADIR BAKHSH And 2 Other

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1991 SCMR 364

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 140 of 1987 Revision No. 208-D of 1986

Date1991-10-30

Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah

Authored byMuhamamd Afzal Zullah

ResultLeave refused

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The underlying dispute involved a suit for declaration regarding title and paternity, which was initially decreed in favor of the respondents. The petitioners' subsequent appeal was dismissed, and their civil revision was later dismissed for non-prosecution. A subsequent application for restoration was also dismissed, leading to a further civil revision, which the High Court rejected on the grounds of laches. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to challenge this dismissal. The Supreme Court examined the delay in filing, applying the principles established in 'Manager, Jammu & Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another' (PLD 1975 SC 678). Finding that the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Court held that there was no justification for interference with the High Court's order. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Questions settled in this judgment

Whether a civil revision dismissed on the ground of laches warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
Does a failure to explain delay in legal proceedings justify the refusal of leave to appeal?

leave to appealcivil revisionlachesnon-prosecutiondelaytitle declarationpaternity

ORDER

1. MUHAMAMD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants' side in a suit for declaration regarding title which also involved the question of paternity of parties; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' civil revision.

2. The respondents' suit having been decreed the petitioners' appeal was dismissed. They filed civil revision which was also dismissed but for non --prosecution. Their application for restoration was dismissed. They filed another civil revision which has also been dismissed on the ground of laches.

3. We heard the learned counsel at length and asked him to explain the delay which has been taken note by the High Court in accordance with the principles enunciated by this Court in `Manager, Jammu & Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another' PLD 1975 SC 678.

4. He having failed to satisfy us in this behalf, no justification has been made out for interference.

5. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.