Law:

Section:

Writ-Laches-Petition of private person stands on different footing from that of Government servant-Longer period than period allowed for appeal to High Court should not be condoned in absence of special circumstances-Unexplained delay of 11 months, after accrual of cause of action to private person already embarked on litigation-Delay inordinate-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.   The Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. The District Magistrate, Tippera, and another P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 267 distinguished.   Pakistan v. Sheikh Abdul Hamid P L D 1961 S C 1 05 ; Manzur Ahmad P. F. S. (1) v. The Province of West Pakistan and others P L D 1961 S C 166 ; Burmah Oil Company (Pakistan Trading) Ltd., Chittagong v. The Trustees of the Port of Chittagong P L D 1962 S C 113 and Sind Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. v. First Assistant Judge, Hyderabad, West Pakistan and four others P L D 1960 Kar. 826 ref: JUDGMENT   NAZEER AHMED MAHMOOD, J.-This is a writ petition by Mr. Khalil-ur-Rahman, challenging the validity of the orders dated the 25th of September 1959 and the 21st of November 1959 of Mr. Justice Masud Ahmad, Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, as set forth by the petitioner, are as follows :-   The petitioner, who is a Pakistani Muslim, entered into an agreement with one LalaBishamber Dass, respondent No. 1, at Karachi to purchase a 1929-Model Alfa Romeo car for Rs. 10,000 on the condition that if, after the car had been exported to India and repaired, the car did not give satisfactory service, the petitioner would be entitled to return the car to respondent No. 1 and the latter would not insist on the completion of the sale. The petitioner executed a pronote for Rs. 10,000 in favour of respondent No. 1 as the consideration for the sale of the car in case the car was eventually purchased by the petitioner. The pronote was payable at Delhi. When the car was imported by the petitioner into Calcutta from Karachi, it was discovered that it was in a bad state of repairs and could not give efficient service. He, therefore, asked respondent No. 1 to take back the car or permit the petitioner to sell it…