Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 728 1982 SLD 728 1982 PLD 234
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 150 and 166 of 1970, decision dated:18-11-1976.
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND DORAB PATEL, JJ
Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Appellants.Muhammad Arif, Advocate instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (Absent) Nos. 1 to 5.Ch. Khaldur Rehman, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advo

JALALUDDIN AND others vsMst. NOOR SAIN AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLV11 of 1958)-S. 21 read with Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XLII of 1956). S. 11 and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98 - Treatment of revision petition as writ petition -- Laches - Conversion of time-barred Settlement revisions into writ petitions sought only on facts and grounds contained in Settlement Revisions and not on ground of Chief Settlement Commissioner's order having been without jurisdiction-Prayer as such made only in order to get round bar of limi­tation and High Court's order converting revisions into writ petitions amounted to relaxation of provisions of S. 21 of Act XLVIL of 1958 and passed contrary to will of Legislature as declared in such section ­Maxim: Equity follows the law-Remedy of writ-Not available to person seeking to circumvent and defeat law by substituting writ petition for time barred statutory remedy-Order of Rehabilitation authorities passed in 1958 and 1960 and writ petitions filed in 1967 and reasonable diligence in prosecuting remedies elsewhere not shown­ Claim of writ petitioners thus hit by laches particularly when no explana­tion given for delay-[Per Muhammad Akram, J. (Minority view)]­Section 21 of Act XLVII of 1958 having no application to final order passed by Rehabilitation Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under S. 11 of Act XLII of 1956, revisions under S.21, not competent-Respondents in circumstances would not be said to have not availed of remedy provided by law within time al and consequently not entitled to issuance of writ in their favour ­High Court in converting revisions into writ petitions merely quashed impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and allowed amend­ment and condoned delay in interests of justice for having zealously pursued remedies before settlement, authority.-[Revision (civil)­Writ-Maxim-Laches-Limitation]. Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by Ferris; Corpus, Juris Secundum, Vol. 38, pp. 565 to 568; Rashid Ahmad and others v. Irshad Ahmad and others 1968 S C M R 12; Muhammad Alt v. Fazal Hussain and others 1975 S C M R 61 and Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others P L D 1964 S C…
🔒
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