' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that respondent No,4 filed an application before respondent No,1 against respondent No,3 and petitioner. Respondent No,1 decreed the same vide impugned decree dated 31-7-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed objection petition before respondent No,1, who dismissed the same vide order dated 15-4-2004.
Hence, this writ petition.
2. The learned Counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No,3 is the sole proprietor of Saleeka Sands Mine firm; whereas the petitioner has absolutely no concern in connection with aforesaid firm of respondent No,3. He further submits that respondent No,1 passed the impugned order without application of mind and without adverting to the documents attached by the petitioner along with his application filed by him before respondent No,1. He further submits that the impugned order dated 15-4-2004 is the result of misreading and non-reading of record. He further submits that the name of the petitioner is included being brother of respondent No,3 in the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-7-2002 passed by respondent No,1.
3. The learned law officer entered appearance on Court's call he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part ofthe decree dated 31-7-2002 and operative part of the impugned order dated 15-4-2004 to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- ' Operative part of decree dated 31-7-2002. {{URDU TEXT}} Operative part of impugned order dated 15-4-2004.
' It is not the case of objectors, that they were unaware of the case pending against them and if despite knowledge, they chose not to care, then who was to suffer, obviously the objectors had to face the consequences. Pleading being condemned unheard without any detail could not be believed.
' As for averment by the objectors that only Muhammad Yousaf is owner of the mining firm namely Iqbal Mineral Corporation it is believed through the challans annexed with the objection petition with regard to payment of renewal fee of the lease, wherein both Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Yousaf are shown as depositors of the amount.
' There is nothing on the file to substantiate the plea of objectors having incurred expenses for the treatment of decree holder, which adversely affect the cause of objectors. Evenotherwise treatment expenditure has nexus with compensation awarded.
' The objectors have not been able to show any sufficient cause to get the relief prayed for and their coming to the Court after such a long time without giving reason seems to be tainted with mala fide, so their objection petition is hereby rejected."
Mere reading of the aforesaid operative part of the decree and impugned order clearly reveals that the decree was passed after completing all the legal formalities, which was not challenged by the petitioner and respondent No,3 well in time before the competent forum. The stand taken by the petitioner that the petitioner has no concern with the firm of respondent No,3 is belied through challan annexed with objection petition with regard to the payment of renewal fee of the lease which clearly reveals that Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Yousaf, had deposited the renewal fee.
6. It is pertinent to mention here the Muhammad Akhtar is the petitioner, whereas Muhammad Yousaf is respondent No,3 before. This Court. The petitioner has not attached copy of objection petition, filed by the petitioner before respondent No,1 along with this Constitutional petition. This fact brings the case of the petitioner in the area that the petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands. It is settled principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character, he who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands and the petitioner has concealed material documents from this Court, therefore, Iam not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments"-- "Abdul Rashid v. Pakistan and others."(1969 SCMR 141); "Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore.v. Ghulam Mustafa and others (1983 SCMR 196).
' It is settled principle of law that official acts are presumed to be correct as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Central Government of Pakistan and others v. Suleman Khan and others" (PLD1992 SC 590). The petitioner has not brought on record any document to show that the petitioner has not filed application for renewal of fee and his signatures were not affixed on the application as is evident from the impugned order dated 15-4-2004. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No,1 has passed the decree against respondent No,3 and the petitioner on 31-7- 2002. The petitioner and respondent No,3 have not challenged the same before any higher forum.
The objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No,1 on 15-4-2004.
The petitioner has not filed this Constitutional petition immediately after dismissing the objection petition, therefore, this Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed on the well known principle of laches, as per principle laid down by this Court and by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Kh. Muhammad Sharif. v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1988 Lahore 725).
"Federation of.Pakistan and others v. Haji M. Saif-Ullah Khan and others" (PLD 1989 SC 166).
"Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir and 4 others" (PLD 1977 SC 304).
Even otherwise as mentioned above, the Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character and substantial justice has been done, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner keeping in view the circumstances and ground realities as emerged out of the impugned decree and order, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. In "Syed NawabRaunaq Ali and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others" (PLD 1973 SC 236).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.