Law:

Section:

Lal Khatoon (petitioner-plaintiff) filed suit for dissolution of her marriage against Allah Jiwaya (respondent-defendant) and prayed for the decree on various grounds. The suit was decreed ex parte in leer favour on 4-2-1996, but the said decree was set aside on the application of the respondent-defendant vide order dated 15-2-1997 on the statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. On 3-12-1997, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution as the plaintiff and her counsel failed to appear. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition, challenged the wires and legality of the orders dated 15-2-1997 and 3-12-1997 as having been passed illegally, without lawful authority and of no legal effect against her rights.   The learned counsel for the petitioner regarding order dated 15 2-1997 submitted that the Advocate who made the statement regarding having no objection to the setting aside of the ex parse decree was not a counsel of the petitioner. He submitted that the said Advocate had made the statement without any authority and, therefore, the said order was liable to, be set aside and quashed.   This contention cannot be accepted at this stage for various reasons. This order dated 15-2-1997 has been disputed in this writ petition filed on p 8-]-1998 i.e. almost after about one year. The petition is hit by tile doctrine of laches.   In the case of Settlement Authority through the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another v. Mst 1976 (PLD SC 410) the Supreme Court while setting aside the Akhtar Sultana order of the High Court observed as follows:-   "The delay and laches were so palpable that they should have attracted the notice of the High Court, and the mere fact that no objection was taken at the time was no ground to omit to consider the consequence of delay and laches. It was the duty of the respondent to explain the obvious delay in moving the writ petition. Nevertheless, this Court is entitled to consider the laches on the part of the respondent and to pass such order as the High Court could or should have passed on a true consideration of the palpable delay in making the Constitutional petition.. "  …