20/10/2022
Judgements of Supreme Court of Pakistan and Lahore High Court on "LACHES"
2022 PLC(CS) 288
2021 SCMR 1313
Constitutional petition before the High Court---Laches , principle of---Scope---Rule of Laches was applied in accordance with facts and circumstances of each case, and it could not be made a rule of universal application.
2019 SCMR 1720
2019 PLC(CS) 1375 Writ of quo warranto---Scope---Writ in the form of quo warranto was an extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction and the Court was not bound to exercise such jurisdiction in each and every case specially where on account of Laches the matter had lost its significance or in cases of minor discrepancies or sheer curable technicalities or where the approach was doctrinaire unless it was shown that non-interference would result in grave injustice or would amount to endorsing the retention of illegal gains.
2017 SCMR 2066
Constitutional petition--- Laches , principle of---Pensionary rights---Recurring right---Circular affecting pensionary rights of employees of a government Bank challenged by way of a constitutional petition before the High Court ten years after the issuance of the circular---Said petition would not be hit by the principle of Laches as pension was a recurring right.
2016 SCMR 183
Constitutional petition before High Court---Maintainability---Laches ---Respondent, who was an employee of Civil Aviation Authority, was dehired from service on account of his illness---Ten years after his de-hiring respondent filed Constitutional petition before the High Court for regularization of his service---Held, that said petition suffered from Laches and ought to have been dismissed for having been filed after a lapse of about 10 years, and that too without any justification or explanation for such delay---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
PLD 2016 SUPREME-COURT 514
Constitution of Pakistan, Art, 199---Additional compensation---Constitutional petition before the High Court, filing of---Rule of Laches ---Land owners seeking additional compensation in terms of S.28-A (now repealed) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, fourteen (14) years after the passing of award by the Collector---Rule of Laches was applicable in the present case---Land owners kept silent and slept over their rights for over fourteen years without any explanation whereafter they decided to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
2015 PLC(CS) 267
Date of birth, alteration in---Delay of 20 years in seeking alteration in date of birth--- Laches --- Effect---Employee of Oil and Gas Development Company (OGDCL) made an application to the company for correction in his date of birth from 6-6-1953 to 11-6-1956 on the strength of a certificate issued by the Executive District Officer (Education)---Said application was rejected by OGDCL---Employee filed a constitutional petition before High Court against order of OGDCL, which was dismissed on the ground of Laches ---Validity---Employee at the time of joining service in OGDCL submitted numerous documents, including his secondary school certificate, Computerized National Identity Card, personal bio-data, personal data form, and all said documents mentioned his date of birth as 6-6-1953---Employee made representation before OGDCL for correction of his date of birth after serving his department for more than 20 years, at a time when he was nearing retirement---Employee was unable to offer any explanation for such inordinate delay in seeking correction of his date of birth---Even at the time of joining service, employee did not reserve his right to seek amendment in his date of birth, nor did he place any material to show that he had approached any authority for correction of his date of birth at the time of joining service---In terms of office memorandums/ circulars issued by OGDCL during different years, employee in question was required to declare his correct date of birth at the time of joining service, and said circulars also provided that date of birth declared at the time of entry into service shall be treated as final and no amendment would be allowed at any subsequent stage---Employee had submitted his date of birth as 6-6-1953 in response to said circulars, and now after 20 years in service he was seeking to nullify documents submitted by him earlier---High Court in such circumstances was justified in holding that constitutional petition was barred by Laches.
2014 SCMR 1573
Removal from office after supersession of the Board---Unexplained delay in challenging removal---Effect---Acquiescence---Laches ---Infructuous petition---Member, Board of Governors (petitioner) was removed from office after the Patron (i.e. Prime Minister) superseded the Board and constituted an Interim Management Committee for the performance of the functions of the Board---Member filed a constitutional petition before the High Court challenging the supersession of the Board, which was allowed and superseded Board was revived with the effect that Member in question was restored to his post---Validity---Term of office of the Member in question had almost expired by the time he filed a constitutional petition before the High Court challenging the supersession of the Board by the Patron---After supersession of the Board, Member in question remained mum for a period of almost three months without any explanation---Rule of acquiescence and principle of Laches was attracted to the present case---Member in question never made an honest effort to seek the enforcement of any of his right, which even otherwise had extinguished with the term of his office as a Member of the Board of Governors coming to an end---Term of office of said Member had come to an end when his petition before the High Court came up for hearing and was decided, therefore, he lost his locus standi to maintain his petition; which could also be termed to have become infructuous---Appeal was dismissed accordingly and judgment of High Court was set aside
2014 SCMR 1008
Date of birth, alteration in---Delay of 20 years in seeking alteration in date of birth--- Laches --- Effect---Employee of Oil and Gas Development Company (OGDCL) made an application to the company for correction in his date of birth from 6-6-1953 to 11-6-1956 on the strength of a certificate issued by the Executive District Officer (Education)---Said application was rejected by OGDCL---Employee filed a constitutional petition before High Court against order of OGDCL, which was dismissed on the ground of Laches ---Validity---Employee at the time of joining service in OGDCL submitted numerous documents, including his secondary school certificate, Computerized National Identity Card, personal bio-data, personal data form, and all said documents mentioned his date of birth as 6-6-1953---Employee made representation before OGDCL for correction of his date of birth after serving his department for more than 20 years, at a time when he was nearing retirement---Employee was unable to offer any explanation for such inordinate delay in seeking correction of his date of birth---Even at the time of joining service, employee did not reserve his right to seek amendment in his date of birth, nor did he place any material to show that he had approached any authority for correction of his date of birth at the time of joining service---In terms of office memorandums/ circulars issued by OGDCL during different years, employee in question was required to declare his correct date of birth at the time of joining service, and said circulars also provided that date of birth declared at the time of entry into service shall be treated as final and no amendment would be allowed at any subsequent stage---Employee had submitted his date of birth as 6-6-1953 in response to said circulars, and now after 20 years in service he was seeking to nullify documents submitted by him earlier---High Court in such circumstances was justified in holding that constitutional petition was barred by Laches.
PLD 2013 SUPREME-COURT 413
Constitutional petition, filing of---Limitation period---Laches ---Scope---Constitutional bar of limitation was not applicable to the proceedings under Art.199 or Art.184 of the Constitution, however, insistence was placed on initiating proceedings promptly and within a reasonable time to avoid the question of Laches.
PLD 2013 SUPREME-COURT 268
Bar of Laches ---Scope---Recurring cause of action---Effect---Bar of Laches could not be over emphasized in a case where the relief claimed was based on a recurring cause of action.
Dismissal of lis on ground of Laches ---Scope---No court could dismiss a lis on the ground of Laches if it defeated the cause of justice and thereby perpetuated an injustice.
Constitutional petition---Dismissal on grounds of Laches ---Scope---Withdrawal of first constitutional petition---Second/fresh constitutional petition filed three years after withdrawal of the first without any explanation---Plea that second constitutional petition was liable to be dismissed on grounds of Laches ---Validity---Dismissal of second petition on grounds of Laches in such circumstances was not a rule of universal application which could be applied in every case without examining the dictates of equity, justice, fair play and circumstances of the case, nor could it be treated at par with the law of limitation prescribing a period for enforcing a right or liability and requiring the court to dismiss a lis if not filed within such period.
2012 SCMR 1004
Constitutional petition---Laches ---Effect---High Court on finding constitutional petition to be barred by Laches , would not be required to decide on merits the issue raised therein.
2012 SCMR 280
2012 PLC(CS) 218
Doctrine of---Scope---Party having an enforceable right, if failed to exercise/enforce the same within time specified' by law, could not enforce on account of Laches ---Principles
2009 SCMR 1421
Levy of Regulatory Excise Duty on manufacture of sugar---Manufacturer by depositing the Regulatory Duty without challenging the levy of the duty or any protest and not claiming the refund within one year, was estopped to agitate the claim after six years, and the principle of Laches and waiver would also come into play against the manufacturer---Principles.
2009 SCMR 177
Rule of Laches being not a rule of universal application, had to be applied to the facts and circumstances of its own case---Principles.
2009 PLC(CS) 506
Rule of Laches being not a rule of universal application, had to be applied to the facts and circumstances of its own case---Principles.
2008 SCMR 1711
Laches , principle of---Applicability---Mukhbari application filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondent was found to be correct and it was directed that cancelled land be allotted in his name against verified claim---Notified Officer passed an order and allotted cancelled land in favour of respondent in year, 2004---Order of allotment was assailed by petitioner in year, 2006, in constitutional petition, before High Court, which petition was dismissed being hit by principle of Laches --Validity---If order was not challenged within the reasonable time, a vested legal right would accrue to the person in whose favour order was passed---After acceptance of Mukhbari application and direction of Settlement Authorities, allotment of land in favour of Mukhbar a vested right had accrued to him---Respondent being son of Mukhbar could not be deprived of a valuable legal right which he had acquired due to negligence of petitioner---Supreme Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by High Court which was unexceptionable--Leave to appeal was refused
PLD 2007 SUPREME-COURT 642
Laches ---Effect---Undertaking given by a citizen of Pakistan not to come back to Pakistan cannot be equated with legal restrictions imposed in `public interest'---Fundamental rights cannot be denied or infringed or curtailed on the ground of Laches ---Principles
PLD 2007 SUPREME-COURT 472
Laches ---Principles---Laches per se is not a bar to the constitutional jurisdiction and question of delay in filing would have to be examined with reference to the facts of each case---Question of delay/Laches in filing constitutional petition has to be given serious consideration and unless a satisfactory and plausible explanation is forthcoming for delay in filing constitutional petition, the same cannot be overlooked' or ignored subject to facts and circumstances of each case.
2007 PLC(CS) 853
Laches ---Petitioners were appointed pursuant to the advertisement in the press, after selection by District Recruitment Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner as its Chairman---Five years after the appointments of petitioners, the respondent assailed the appointments---High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction allowed the petition and declared the appointments as without lawful authority---Validity---No serious defect in the appointment of the petitioners was shown from record which was brought by the Authorities---Constitutional petition was filed after a period of five years when the petitioners had already been confirmed in their appointments after successful completion of probation period---Constitutional petition suffered from gross Laches without there being any justifiable explanation---Some minor irregularities in the appointment of petitioners were not sufficient for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against them---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and judgment passed by High Court was set aside
PLD 2006 SUPREME-COURT 602
Laches ---Ground of lathes cannot prevail on question relating to the constitutionality of actions, for there, can be no estoppel against the Constitution and an act which is unconstitutional cannot become constitutional by lapse of time nor can it vest anyone with any kind of legal right to benefit from such constitutional act---Supreme Court cannot be refrained from examining the constitutionality of a law because of lapse, of time, therefore, notwithstanding any objection, if the constitutionality of law is under challenge, its vires can be examined despite the fact that it had remained on the statute book for a considerable time.
2005 SCMR 1380 Constitutional petition before High Court---Laches ---Administration of justice---Doctrine of estoppel---Applicability---Respondents were allotted land by Settlement Department but the allotment was cancelled after about 15/20 years after their settlement---Respondents being aggrieved of the act of Settlement Authorities invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court where Advocate-General gave an undertaking on behalf of the Authorities with regard to settlement of respondents---In compliance of the statement of Advocate-General, the Notified Officer allotted alternate lands to respondents---Five years after the allotment of alternate lands to the respondents, Board of Revenue filed Constitutional petitions before High Court assailing the order of Notified Officer whereby the alternate lands were allotted to the respondents---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction dismissed the petitions and maintained the order of allotment made by Notified Officer---Validity---Held, it did not lie in the mouth of Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner to say that the Notified Officer, who had passed the order pursuant to the entrustment of the matter to him by Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner himself in pursuance of the commitment made by their representative before High Court, had acted illegally and without jurisdiction---Order passed by Notified Officer, besides being operating as an estoppel against Board of Revenue, was an order which had done justice to respondents---Superior Courts had always refused to interfere with an action which advanced the cause of justice and which undid a manifest wrong done to a helpless and suffering party---Authorities failed to offer any explanation about the inordinate delay of at least 5 years in approaching High Court---Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner was estopped by his own words and conduct from questioning the order of Notified Officer which order had ensured justice to the suffering respondents---Conduct of Authorities in not restoring the original allotments of lands to respondents in pursuance of the order of High Court passed in earlier Constitutional petitions, was contemptuous which operated at least as a factor warranting sympathy and fairplay for respondents---Constitutional petitions filed by Authorities were hit by Laches
2005 SCMR 126
Laches and limitation---Distinction---"Delay in filing of legal proceedings, within the period specified under the provisions of Limitation Act, 1908", and "undue time consumed by a party in filing Constitutional petition, for which no statutory period is prescribed under the law"---Distinction---In the case of limitation, delay of each day is to be explained by furnishing sufficient cause for enlargement of time and condonation of delay within the contemplation of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, whereas in filing of Constitutional petition lapse of time or question of Laches is to be examined on equitable principles for the reason that the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is always discretionary with the Court and relief so granted is always in the nature of equitable relief---In case High Court comes to a conclusion that equity leans in favour of petitioner, the Court must exercise, discretion in favour of such party.
2004 SCMR 400
Laches ---Limitation---Distinction--Principles---No exception to the rule that delay in seeking remedy of appeal, review or revision beyond the period of limitation provided under the statute, in absence of reasonable explanation, cannot be condoned and in the same manner if remedy of Constitutional petition is not availed reasonable time, the interface can be refused on the ground of Laches ---Laches cannot be equated with limitation and by itself is not a sufficient ground to non-suit a person if the equities are not against him and he has not been sleeping over his right or was not indolent---Question of Laches in Constitutional petition is always considered in the light of conduct of the person invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Degree of negligence of petitioner, if any and that if by grant of relief being sought by him-no injustice is caused to the opposite-party, the Constitutional petition should not be dismissed merely on the ground of Laches without examining-the dictates of justice ---Laches in simplest form mean failure of a person to do something which should have been done by him within reasonable time and is not synonymous with delay alone but it can be worked out to the disadvantage to another person in the matter of his right---Court, in suitable cases, in its discretionary jurisdiction, subject to offering of reasonable explanation, can condone delay in filing an appeal, review or revision, as the case may be, and similarly can also ignore delay, if any, in filing of Constitutional petition in the interest of justice.
PLD 2003 SUPREME-COURT 132
Laches --Effect. Writ jurisdiction is undoubtedly discretionary and extraordinary in nature which may not be invoked by a party who demonstrates a style of slackness and laxity on his part. Furthermore, if a party does not choose legal remedy available under the Statute, strictly speaking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be exercised in his favour. Law is well-settled that a party guilty of gross negligence and Laches is not entitled to the equitable relief. One who seeks equity must show that equities lean in his favour.
PLD 2003 SUPREME-COURT 90
Laches ---Allotment of land---Title of property---In the absence of any declaration of law made in a judgment, a person may not be able to protect his title in the property on the basis of said judgment but if the right of a person in property is pr9tected by the law declared in an earlier judgment, such person cannot be non-suited and deprived of his right in the property merely on the ground of Laches ---Dismissal of Constitutional petition in given circumstances, on ground of Laches , would amount to deprive the petitioners from their rights already recognized in law.
PLD 2002 SUPREME-COURT 830
Laches ---Courts always help the vigilent, who approaches the Court in time, but do not help the person, who is negligent in persuing his matter.
2001 SCMR 1191
Laches , principle of--Applicability---Principle of Laches is pressed into service in Constitutional petitions and not in appeals under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
1998 SCMR 2645
Laches ----Law helps the diligent and normally does not support the indolent.
1994 SCMR 1024
Laches ---Concept--Petitioner, an employee of Capital Development Authority though had been diligently agitating in all the other forums, he invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court after about twelve years---Concept of Laches in service matter, held was different from that of ordinary litigation
1994 PLC(CS) 755
Concept. of delay, Laches or inaction has altogether different qualitative content in matters other than service cases---Principle of promptness in bringing service grievances before Courts of equity was given a statutory form in Service Tribunals Act, 1973, where while departmental appeal itself was pending decision, right was conferred for preferring appeal to Service Tribunal---Time for filing appeal was although short, yet -service rules made it possible for a dissatisfied civil servant to even file his appeal by post---All such factors pointed to strict application of period of limitation prescribed under the law--Even if order in question, was assumed to be void, still bar of limitation could not be avoided in the case of civil servant for lack of satisfactory explanation for delay and equities were also against it--
1991 SCMR 1592 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Side Opponent : DEPUTY SETTLEMETN COMMISSIONER
Laches ----No justification to equate Laches with statutory bar of limitation ---Laches operate as a bar in equity whereas statutory limitation would operate as a legal bar to the grant of remedy---In Laches all dictates of justice, equity and balance of legitimate rights were to be weighed---No justification to equate Laches with statutory bar of limitation could thus, be emphasised
PLD 1991 SUPREME-COURT 807
Laches in context of Pakistan jurisprudence is applicable more as bar of estoppel rather than as a bar limitation
1988 SCMR 1876
Limitation and Laches -Appreciation of evidence on questions of fact--Confirmed allotments cancelled under Martial Law Regulation No.9 without any fault of allottee-respondents--Respondents were not allotted land despite directions of Chief Settlement Commissioner--Claim forms of respondents kept pending and lands available in the area secretly confirmed in favour of appellants in clear violation of directions of Deputy Settlement Commissioner--- Respondents deprived of allotment although their claims in the said land were prior in time--Confirmations made in favour of appellants cancelled and respondents ordered to be accommodated first in revision--Writ petitions filed by appellants failed--Appeals to Supreme Court--Plea that proceedings taken by respondents in appeal and revision were barred by limitation and suffered from Laches , not entertained--Settlement Commissioner having observed material.
1987 SCMR 1119 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : PAKISTAN POST OFFICE
Side Opponent : SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
"Statutory bar of limitation" and "Laches " cannot be equated--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5.
Delay--Laches --Condonation--Departmental delay whenever put forward as a ground for condonation of delay requires consideration on its merits and rejected or accepted accordingly, as the case may be
1984 SCMR 940
Laches expressed in simplest term, implied a failure 'to do something that a party should have done-Laches , as a concept of law, not synonymous with delay alone but it signifies such delay as worked to the disadvantage of another
1984 SCMR 845
Laches -Time taken in securing copies of orders which bad to accompany writ petition Delay of nine months in filing writ petition-Held, not an extraordinary delay which could destroy rights of petitioner to have his entitlement to transfer being considered on merits and that case not one where principles of acquiescence and waiver on account of Laches could be invoked
PLD 1983 SUPREME-COURT 344
Laches -Party cannot be non-suited for mere Laches when period of limitation is yet to expire
1982 SCMR 913
Laches -Principles for applying bar of Laches : (i) acquiescence on plaintiff/petitioner's part, (ii) any change of position occurring on defendant/respondent's part
1981 PLC(CS) 121
Laches -Mere fact of same Bench of High Court or other Benches having taken a different view is respect of Laches , held, not ground for review and High Court can decide question of Laches in light of all relevant circumstances having bearing on matter
1980 SCMR 711
A void order must be struck down provided no statute or principle of law makes it unjust or inequitable to strike it down.-- Art. 199-Writ-Laches -Petitioner failing to challenge void order for more than a decade leading to such consequences as promotion of others to appointment held by petitioner-Law drawing a line somewhere between delays which can and cannot be condoned, delay in instant case being too gross to be condoned irrespective of question of order being either void or void-able-Allowing writ after such gross Laches , held, would be to throw on taxpayer consequences of petitioner's gross negligence in pursuing his remedies- Writ petition dismissed on ground of Laches , in circumstances
2021 YLR 860
Laches , principle of---Applicability---Consolidation scheme---Objection---Petitioners were aggrieved of order directing Consolidation Officer to amend Consolidation Scheme---Validity---Constitutional petition before High Court was filed after lapse of 1 year and 2 months without explaining any convincing and reasonable cause of inordinate delay therefore, principle of Laches was applicable---Matter in issue pertained to consolidation proceedings which contained factual controversy and the same could not be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction---High Court declined to re-appraise such factual controversy in its Constitutional jurisdiction, as High Court could not sit as an appellate Court against concurrent decisions of Consolidation Revenue Authorities---Order in question was made by Consolidation Authorities with regard to allocation of land and it was not fit to be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction---Allocation and demarcation of land was left open for domain of Consolidation Officer and High Court in exercise of Art. 199 of the Constitution should not reappraise such factual controversies but should concern itself only with legality of orders and not its propriety---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2021 CLC 1286
Principle of Laches is not one of the universal application to be applied in every case without examining dictates of equity, justice, fair-play and fact and circumstances of the case---Laches cannot be treated at par with law of limitation which prescribe period for enforcing a right or liability and requires Courts to dismiss a lis if not filed within such prescribed statutory period---No Court should dismiss a lis on the ground of Laches if action assailed before it defeats the ends of justice and perpetuates injustice
2020 MLD 1211
Laches , doctrine of---Applicability---Contention of plaintiffs was that their predecessor-in-interest had been deprived from inheritance ---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs remained alive for more than twenty five years but she did not initiate any legal proceedings to seek her inherited estate---Law aids the vigilant and not the indolent---Doctrine of Laches was applicable in the present case---Plaintiffs had lost enforcement of their right due to lapse of ninety three years and a number of mutations had been attested ever since---Limitation could be ignored when matter was with regard to inheritance---Party should have approached the Court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence---When suit had been filed by legal heirs of the right-holder after his/her death then law of limitation would apply---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed---Revision was allowed, in circumstances
2020 PLC(CS) 404
Laches , doctrine of---Applicability---Retirement of employee under Voluntary Separation Scheme---Pension, grant of---Contention of employee was that he had qualifying service to his credit but pension had not been granted to him---Validity---Employee had filed the constitutional petition with inordinate delay therefore, no indulgence could be shown to him---Employee company had alleged that employee had less than ten years of service for qualifying for pension---Disputed questions of fact were involved in the matter, evidence was required for resolution of dispute---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
2018 PLC(CS) 574
Laches ---Question of Laches , determination of---Scope---Fundamental Right(s) could not be denied, infringed or curtailed on ground of Laches and court could not dismiss a lis on ground of Laches if doing so defeated the cause of justice---Laches , per se, was not a bar on exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and question of delay in filing of a Constitutional petition would have to be examined with reference to facts of each case---Question of Laches was to be considered in the light of conduct of person invoking Constitutional jurisdiction and degree of negligence if any should be considered along with determining that if by grant of relief being sought, no injustice would be caused to opposite party----No Constitutional petition should be dismissed merely on ground of Laches without examining dictates of justice.
2018 PLC(CS)N 187
Constitutional petition---Laches ---Scope
2017 CLC 1361
Definition---Laches or lashesis, old French word for slackness or negligence, or not doing---Laches in law is neglect to do something which by law a man is obliged to do.
Constitutional petition--- Laches , doctrine of---Applicability---Scope---Petitioner contended that he was not effected by the principle of Laches as respectable of his area tried to rescue the dispute through private arrangement and due to that constitutional petition had been filed with some delay---Petitioner had submitted that he might not be non-suited under the principle of Laches , and the petition be decided on merits after hearing both the parties---Validity---Two legal modes were provided to see as to whether the lis/judicial matter was brought before the court of competent jurisdiction within the prescribed period of limitation: According to the Limitation Act, 1908 hard and fast rules were provided to approach the court for redressal of grievances within stipulated/given time and if it was not done so and no reasonable cause was shown to justify the delay, the party approaching court with delay could be non-suited; law of limitation was subservient law as compared to constitutional provisions, therefore constitutional petition had to be taken up under the principle of Laches ---Principle of Laches was based on the principle of equity, good conscious and natural justice---Laches , according to its simplest meaning, was negligence committed by person in observance of duty or opportunity, undue delay in asserting legal right or privileges---Failure of litigant to do something which had not been done within reasonable time must be justified---Justification put forward for the petitioner was not even plausible and reasonable cause to avoid implication of Laches ---Continuous non-applicability of counsel for the petitioner, during the pendency of constitutional petition, also showed non-seriousness of the petitioner---Petitioner by his conduct during the pendency of the constitutional petition and by adopting another mode of private arrangement for redressal of his grievances had disentitled him to claim or seek that the petition was not hit under the principle of Laches ---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Definition---Laches is a French term which has been derived from (Law French, "remissness, slackness"); unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim; always an equitable one and in a way that prejudices party against whom relief is sought
History---Chancery developed the doctrine that where the plaintiff in equity delayed beyond the period of the statute applicable at law, relief would be refused on the ground of Laches even though no specific prejudice to the defendant was shown---Statutes of limitation in most states applying to suits in equity; despite, however, the doctrine still holds that even if the delay is for a shorter period of time than that of the statute, it may still bar equitable relief, if it is unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant.
2017 PLC(CS) 453
Constitutional petition before the High Court---'Laches ' doctrine of---Scope---Rule of Laches had been evolved by courts and had to be weighed in each case; it was a discretion vesting in the superior courts and had to be construed accordingly---Decisive factor was whether the person invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court had been utterly indolent in agitating his rights and had slept over them, however if he had been raising his voice in any manner and at any forum, he could not be shut out on the plea of Laches .
2017 PLC(CS)N 86
Constitutional petition---Laches , principle of---Applicability---Issue of Laches is to be considered and examined on the basis of equitable principles.
2016 YLR 1916
Laches , principle of---Scope/applicability--Principle of Laches could not be equated with the limitation---Effect of delay in filing the Constitutional petition was to be determined on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case---Laches could not be pleaded against an order which was apparently illegal and unlawful.
2016 PLC(CS) 1335
Laches ---Scope---Laches could not be equated with limitation---Laches could be determined on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case---Writ of quo warranto could be issued when claimed disqualification of the employee held the field till the date of decision of the constitutional petition
PLD 2015 LAHORE 336
Laches ---Question of Laches could not be considered without considering the claim of each party in the Constitutional petition---Where a significant point of law was involved which attracted a question of public importance; dismissal on technical grounds became insignificant and immaterial---Constitutional petition could not be dismissed on ground of Laches without examining the dictates of justice in the claim of each party apart from examination of law and jurisdictional points involved in the case.
2015 YLR 1518
Laches , doctrine of---Applicability---Electric Inspector and Advisory Board decided the matter against petitioner vide their orders dated 6-3-2003 and 18-10-2003, respectively, which orders were assailed by petitioner in year, 2006---Validity---Doctrine of Laches was developed by superior Courts to regulate their jurisdiction to have petition dismissed on the threshold---Doctrine was based upon equity and had allowed High Court to non-suit a person on its basis, if it found a party guilty of contumacy, indolence, inaction, laxity or gross negligence in prosecution of a case---Petition was filed two years and two months after the decision of Advisory Board---No compelling reasons were put forth to justify Laches , therefore, petition must fail on account of Laches ---High Court upheld the decision made by Advisory Board as the same was valid and suffered from no jurisdictional defect or error of law, which did not call for judicial review---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2015 CLC 1347
Laches , principle of---Applicability---Ground for dissolution of marriage being cruelty, non-provision of maintenance and second marriage by husband---Second marriage by husband---Requirements---Return of benefits received by wife---Scope---Contention of the wife was that husband had contracted second marriage without her consent---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court---Validity---Not only permission of first wife was required for contracting second marriage but permission of Arbitration Council in writing was also required---Husband had contracted second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage without obtaining any permission from his wife or from the union council---Wife had not claimed decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula but she had claimed for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, non-provision of maintenance and contracting of second marriage without her permission---Contracting second marriage without prior permission in writing from Arbitration Council was prohibited---Contracting second marriage alone was sufficient for wife to justify seeking decree for dissolution of marriage---No occasion existed for the Family Court to grant decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula when wife had proved that husband had contracted second marriage without her permission and she had not claimed for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula---Family Court had rightly granted decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds urged in the plaint---When decree for dissolution of marriage had been passed on any of the grounds enumerated in S.2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 then wife was not required to return the benefits to the husband which she had received due to her marriage with him---Land which was given to the wife by way of gift was not in lieu of dower---Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties---Constitutional petition was liable to be dismissed as same suffered from Laches ---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2015 MLD 1081
Laches , principle of---Scope---Laches per se was not a bar to the invoking of constitutional jurisdiction---Question of delay in filing of constitutional petition would have to be examined with reference to the facts of each case---Lapse of time had to be exam
2014 CLD 322
PLD 2014 Lahore 203
Laches are not determined with the length of a specific period of time only and were to be ascertained by a combination of time and behaviour of both parties; and varied from case to case---Laches may occur within a couple of days or the mischief may not come into play even by the passage of decades
2013 CLD 1895
Laches , principle of---Applicability---If order or act of any authority is void, unjust and improper, principle of Laches cannot be pressed into service.
PLD 2012 Lahore 515
Enforcement of fundamental rights---Laches ---Effect---Laches could not stall enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution
2012 CLD 1873
Constitutional petition---Fraud---Laches ---Scope---When whole proceedings are illegal and based on fraud, limitation does not come in the way of justice
2012 PLC(CS) 1223
"Laches " and "limitation"---Distinguished---Delay in filing of legal proceedings within the period specified under provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, and undue time consumed by party in filing Constitutional petition in which no statutory period was prescribed under law have different parameters---Delay in the case under Limitation Act, 1908, has to be explained for each and every day with evidence but in case of Laches in filing of Constitutional petition lapse of time on question of Laches has to be examined on equitable principles---Exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is always discretionary with court and relief granted under Constitutional jurisdiction is always an equitable relief
2011 YLR 2850
Impugned order void ab initio---Laches in filing constitutional petition---Effect---Period of limitation or Laches would not come in way of justice in such case---Principles.
PLD 2010 Lahore 625
Writ of quo warranto---Limitation or Laches ---Question of limitation or Laches does not apply in cases of quo warranto, as courts cannot allow to perpetuate the usurper to continue in, a public office---Unlawful holding of a public office is a continuing wrong, which can be called in question by any party at any time---Furthermore, a constitutional petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of Laches without examining dictates of justice in claim of each party, in addition to examination of law and jurisdictional point involved in the petition.
2007 CLD 637
"Estoppel" and :"Laches "---Distinction stated
PLD 2007 Lahore 353
Laches ---Applicability---Scope. Laches alone is not sufficient to dismiss the petitions if the petitioners have otherwise a good case on merits. In absence of a bar of limitation, the period within which such remedy is to be sought is to be reasonable one and element of due diligence is to be kept in mind. The important fact is that delay should never be such as to generate a belief or situation of abandonment of the right because, then, vested rights come into operation which cannot be deviated from. Question of Laches in petitions is always considered in the light of conduct of the person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. The petitioners have to explain the reasons for not approaching the Court within reasonable time and in absence of any cogent explanation, the interference can be refused on the ground of Laches .
2006 CLD 1543
Question of Laches is to be dealt with on, the touchstone of natural justice
2004 YLR 1969
Delay in filing of legal proceedings--Laches and limitation provided in Limitation Act, 1908---Distinction---Laches of several years can be overlooked if the facts of the case and dictates of justice so demand---In some cases, the Laches of a few months may be fatal to a Constitutional petition---Marked distinction exists between delay in filing of a legal proceedings within the period specified in Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908, and delay in filing of Constitutional petition for which no statutory period is provided---In case where the limitation is provided, the delay on each and every day is to be explained by showing `sufficient cause' for condonation of delay and in case of Laches , the case is to be examined on equitable principles for the reasons that grant of Constitutional relief is discretionary in nature
2011 CLC 1839
Constitutional petition---Laches ---Effect
