MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J. --- Through this Intra-Court Appeal the appellant has prayed for setting aside of order dated 28.5.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13775 of 2012.
2. Briefly put, respondent 'No. 2 filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles against the appellant wherein the appellant filed an application for appointment of local commission which was allowed vide order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Lahore and Local Commission was asked to prepare Inventory List of. articles lying in the Bank Locker. Vide order dated 16.4.2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court again local commission was appointed in terms of order dated 13.7.2008 with a direction to break the Locker as per law if the parties do not provide key of the Locker. The.matter regarding inspection of Bank Locker kept lingering on as both the parties claimed that they had no key of the Locker. Vide order dated 30.3.2009 the learned Judge Family Court, without deciding the controversy of Bank Locker, adjourned the case to 21.4.2009 for framing of issues on which date learned counsel for appellant/defendant filed application for proceeding further according to order dated 16.4.2008 which application was dismissed vide order dated 20.6.2009. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.6.2009 the petitioner filed a petition (Writ Petition No. 13775/2012) before this Court which came up for hearing on 28.5.2012 and was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court; hence this Intra Court Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that while passing the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court did not appreciate that the matter regarding usage of Bank Locker and preparation of inventory by the Local Commission was still pending and principle of laches was not applicable to the writ petition filed by the appellant; that law favours adjudication of matters on merits instead of technicalities and that the petitioner filed the writ petition just for issuance of direction to the learned Judge Family Court for compliance of his earlier orders.
4. On the hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 supports the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and going through the documents annexed with this petition, the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, we are of the view that controversy in precise in- between the parties is qua a Bank Locker. As both the parties took the stance that key of the Locker is not with them, the learned Trial Court directed to break the Locker, as per law. On 30.3.2009 the learned Trial Court without deciding the controversy regarding Bank Locker adjourned the case to 21.4.2009 for framing of issues on which date the appellant filed an application for compliance of order dated 16.4.2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 20.6.2009, hence, the appellant/petitioner filed Writ Petition, subject-matter of instant appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the principle of 'aches which is not applicable to instant case as the main case is still pending before the learned Trial Court. While dealing with somewhat similar question, in the case reported as Hyderabad Development Authority through M.D., Civic Centre, Hyderabad v. Abdul Majeed and others (PLD 2002 SC 84), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has inter alia held as under:-- "........Even otherwise if on merits the respondents have no case then limitation would not be a hurdle in the way of appellant for getting justice."
6. Further, a Court passing any order is duty bound to ensure that its earlier orders have been complied with or not and in the instant case, the appellant in writ petition only sought compliance of earlier orders passed by the learned Judge Family Court.
7. As discussed earlier, principle of laches does not apply to instant case. Reluctantly, instant Intra- Court Appeal is accepted and the Writ Petition No. 13775 of 2012 is hereby allowed.