' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against judgment dated 9- 5-2005 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed On the sole ground that it is barred by laches.
2. Facts relevant for decision of this appeal are that the respondent pre-empted the transfer of exchange in terms of para 25 of the Martial Law Regulation No,115 claiming himself to be the tenant of the land in question. The suit was decreed by the Collector. The Additional Commissioner, vide judgment dated 5-10-1982 set aside the judgment and decree of the Collector. The respondents challenged the judgment of the Additional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, and a Member of the Board reversed the findings of the Additional Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. The r file was, however, misplaced by the office of the High Court, which was reconstructed and the writ petition was numbered as W.P.No,21358 of 2000 and the same was allowed, by the High Court, vide judgment dated 2-11-2011.
The petitioner challenged this judgment before this Court in C.P.L.A. No,3576-L of 2001, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the High Court for decision afresh on the issues of laches as well as on merits. The High Court, on remand, again dismissed the writ petition, by the impugned judgment, and the petitioner filed civil petition in which leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 28-3-2006. Hence this appeal.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge in Chambers in the Lahore High Court has dismissed the petition solely on the ground that it was barred by laches.
He submits that the case was remanded by this Court with the direction that the question of laches as well as the merits shall be considered by the High Court while deciding the petition. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the High Court did not consider the merits and has dismissed the petition on the ground of laches only. He submits that the impugned order, therefore, was in deviation of the order of this Court, which has directed that the High Court shall also consider the merits. His next submission was that the laches were fully explained and the High Court has failed to take note of the fact that on an application of the appellant, the file was reconstructed. He contends that the order of the learned Administrative Judge in the High Court itself absolved the appellant as far as the issue of laches was concerned.
4. As against this, Mr. Gul Zarian Kiyani, learned Advocate. Supreme Court for the respondents has submitted that the petition was originally filed on 14-4-1986 and thereafter neither the appellant nor his counsel persuaded the petition before the High Court under the pretext that the file was missing. He submits that on '7-12-1999, the first application was made by the appellant pleading therein that the file of the case was missing. The appellant filed second application on 1-5-2000 and on the basis of this second application, the filed was ordered to be reconstructed.
5. When confronted with this, the counsel for the appellant concedes that from the date of filing of the petition till 7-12-1999, the counsel for the appellant kept on orally requesting the Deputy Registrar, Lahore High Court, to trace the file but when no response was received, these two applications were filed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It is inconceivable that the petition was filed on .14-4-1986 and till 7-12-1999 no efforts were made by the appellant or his counsel to trace the file for more than 14 years. The explanation of the learned counsel that the counsel for the appellant appearing in the High Court kept on orally pursuing the matter with the Deputy Registrar does not appeal to reasons. No efforts were made nor there was any material placed on record to substantiate that either the appellant or his counsel were approaching the relevant office of the High Court to trace the file. Applications referred to hereinabove by the learned counsel for the appellant could not be tell led as sufficient explanation nor reconstruction of the file under the orders of the administrative Judge itself a ground to believe that the appellant and or his counsel were pursuing the issue of missing of file vigilantly with the staff of the Lahore High Court. The learned Judge, vide impugned judgment, was justified in dismissing the petition on the ground of laches. If a Court comes to the conclusion that the petition was barred by laches, it is not required that it should also decide the issue raised in the petition on merits.
7. We, for the aforesaid reasons, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which is well reasoned.. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.