In all II writ petitions have been filed by different persons against the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 8-5-1974, but by this judgment I shall dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 914-R and 915-R of 1977, because in these petitions learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection about laches.
' The impugned order was passed on 8th May, 1974. Against this Writ Petition No, 876-R of 1974 and eight others were admitted to full bearing on different dates in the year 1974 ; whereas the aforesaid two petitions werse filed after a lapse of three years from the date of the order impugned.
2. I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to first explain the inordinate delay. He drew my attention to the explanation given in the petitions and submitted that the delay was on account of illness of the petitioners as they were laid' up on account of heart ailment and blood pressure. In support of this learned counsel drew my attention to the medical certificates Annexures 'H' and "E".
' Relying on Jaffar Khan v. Settlement Commissioner (1), learned counsel submitted that as other petitions concerning this very property had been admitted and were going to be examined on merits, therefore, the delay in these two petitions be condoned and they be also considered along with other petitions.
(1) PLD 1975 Kar . 7
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it so appeared that the petitioners thought of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction only after the other writ petitions had been admitted to regular hearing otherwise they were not serious and they took a chance just to try their luck.
4. The medical certificate (Annexure 'H') filed by Islam-ud-Din petitioner in Writ Petition No, 914-R-77 is by a private practitioner, according to this certificate the petitioner was under medical treatment with effect from 10-6-1974 to 1-9-1974. Similarly, in Writ Petition No, 915-R-77, the explanation given was that in view of the death of the petitioner's wife, he got blood pressure and diabetes, for which he was medically treated. The petitioner (Mahmood Ali) had also placed on record, the medical certificate by the same doctor which shows that he remained under his treatment from 2-6-1974 to 10-9-1974.
5. I am not impressed with these certificates, but even if these are to be accepted even then the petitioners have no reasonable explanation for the delay from September, 1974 to 28-6-1977 when they invoked the constitutional jurisdiction.
The question of laches cannot be bypassed simply on the ground that other petitions have also been admitted to regular hearing I have gone through Jaffar Khan v. Settlement Commissioner.
The said case is distinguishable from the present one. The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is combined with equitable jurisdiction as well, and, for that matter, the conduct of the person invoking such jurisdiction is very important. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent In the present case no reasonable explanation has been given for the inordinate delay. The petitioners must, therefore, suffer for that.
' I am, therefore, not inclined to consider these petitions on merit. Both are accordingly dismissed on the ground of laches. No costs.