| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 503 = 1990 MLD 563 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-1001 of 1980, decided on 30th November, 1989.
Presented By: Before Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ
Khalid M. lshaque for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmed Khan for
Respondent.
Constitutional Petition No. D-1001 of 1980, decided on 30th November, 1989.
Presented By: Before Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ
Khalid M. lshaque for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmed Khan for
Respondent.
M.H. ABIDI--Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION--Respondent
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Lashes----Limitation---Lashes is not the same thing as limitation--Where the petitioner an insurance agent, was refused his commission during the years 1973-75 and he considered the matter to be worth a further try, at the level of the State-run enterprise itself, resorted to a repeat representation, which he promptly made, which was acknowleged to be pending all the time and which was, finally, turned down on 20-1-1980- Constitutional petition tiled in 1090 thus did not suffer from laches. Laches is not the same thing as limitation. It is not every grievance, which requires to be promptly ventilated and pursued in a legal forum. Litigation is to be avoided rather than invited. Whether or not limitation is provided, before recourse to law is taken, an aggrieved person has to be sure that a point of no return has reached and that redress must be sought. However, where limitation is invocable he must act within the prescribed period. But no period, as may constitute laches, can be quantified. In the absence of a bar of limitation, the period within which remedy is to be sought has, however, invariably to be a reasonable one. Element of due diligence is also to be reconciled. What is more, delay should never be such as to generate a belief or situation of abandonment of the right because, then, vested rights come into operation and cannot be deviated from. Still, whether or not laches is involved in a particular case depends on the facts of such case. But, it is only when a right is firmly and finally repudiated, leaving no legitimate scope for retraction that, in the absence of a bar of limitation, a person is obliged to resort to legal proceedings. In the present case, even though the petitioner was refused accommodation, he considered the matter to be worth a further try, at the level of the State--run enterprise itself, resorted to a repeat representation, which he promptly made, which was acknowledged to be pending all the time and which was, finally, turned down on 20-1-1980. This, therefore, was not a case of laches. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art.199--Constitutional…