Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 181 1977 SLD 181 1977 SCMR 324
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-148 of 1976, decision dated: 17th September 1977
MUHAMMAD GUL AND DORAB PATEL, JJ
Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Additional Advocate General, Sind instructed by S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners S. Nasir-ud-Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Y. A. Kidwai Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent. Nemo for
Respondent

PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 others

VS

ARSALA KHAN AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- Art. 199-caches-Condonation of delay--History-sheet of first respondent opened without notice to him and on being informed of such state of affairs such respondent filing writ petition praying for declaration of illegality of such transaction---Content on that petition having been filed after delay of 14 years ought to have teen treated: by High Court as barred by laches Held : Question of condonation of delay within discretion of High Court rarely and reluctantly interfered with by Supreme Court-History-sheet having been opened without notice question of laches depends upon date on which first respondent learnt of its opening-Averments of first respondent if vague, petitioners ought to have asked for particulars in clarification­ Such not having been done, High Court left with no material to hold writ petition barred by laches.-[caches-Condonation of delay]. JUDGMENT DORAB PATAL, J.-This petition fir leave has been filed against judgment of a Division Bench of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court by which the learned Judges of the High Court allowed the writ petition of respondent No. l and gave this respondent a declaration that the history-sheet opened against him by the Baghdadi Police Station, Karachi was without lawful authority. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General, the history-sheet of respondent No. 1 wag opened in 1961 because he had been convicted several times. But the Additional Advocate-General very fairly conceded that this was without notice to the first respondent. Now the first respon­dent's claim in. his writ petition was that case had been filed against him is 1975 for which he had approached the High Court for relief and further that he had learnt of the opening of the history-sheet only when he had been called by telephone to the police station. Although the averments are vague, on the whole, it seems to us that according to the petition, the first respondent had learnt in 1975 that the history-sheet had been opened against him, hence the writ petition, which was pressed on the ground that the history-sheet had been opened without giving notice to the first respondent. The petitioners…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492