1. TARIQ IFTIKHAR AHMAD, J.--- A civil suit titled "Talib Hussain v. Nawab Ali and others" for Specific Performance of Agreement was instituted on 06.07.1995 and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial court through judgment dated 29.10.1995, as defendants did not contest the suit. The petitioner filed an application under section 12(2) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment dated 29.10.1995 being managed/obtained from the learned trial court by playing fraud. The learned trial court after obtaining written reply from the respondents, framed issues, recorded the evidence and vide order dated 22.11.2006 dismissed the application. Against said order, the petitioner filed a civil revision, which also met, with same result at the hands of learned revisional court, who passed judgment on 26.05.2007. Against these orders/judgments, the petitioner has filed the present petition on 13.10.2010.
2. 2.It is pertinent to mention here that this petition was fixed on various dates and adjourned mostly on account of non-availability of learned counsel for the petitioner. Ultimately, this Court vide order dated 24th September, 2013 dismissed the writ petition on two grounds, firstly for non-appearance and secondly that petition is barred by principle of laches. The petitioner filed C.M. No,1 of 2013 under section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for restoration of the writ petition. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2013 and restored the instant writ petition. From that date onwards, the petition was fixed from time to time but could not be taken up due to non-availability of learned counsel for the petitioner or on the request that he wanted to file attested copies of statements, recorded before the learned trial court.
3. 3.On 13.12.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to assist this Court as to whether the petition is hit under the principle of laches and today i,e, 04.01.2017, I have heard the learned counsel on this point at considerable length. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that injustice was done to the petitioner, who was deprived of his valuable rights because of non- judicial approach of courts below and for the safe administration of justice, the petitioner though has filed this petition with some delay, however, is not effected by the principle of laches. Further submits that according to Para No,12 of the writ petition, it has been submitted that after the decision/order passed by the learned revisional court below, the respectable of the area tried to rescue the dispute through private arrangement and due to that instant petition has been filed with some delay. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Syed Faiz All Shah (represented by heirs) v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Lahore (1974 SCM R 33), "Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and others" (1984 SCM R 940), "Farzand Raza Naqvi and 5 others v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others" (2004 SCM R 400) and "Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad lqbal Khan and 7 others"
4. (1985 CLC 1280). He concludes his submissions that the petitioner may not be non-suited under the principle of laches and this petition be heard by condoning the delay, if any, and decided the petition on merits, after hearing both the parties, so substantial justice is done.
5. There are two legal modes provided to see as to whether the lis/judicial matter is brought before the court of competent jurisdiction within prescribed period of limitation. According to the Limitation Act, 1908 hard and fast rules are provided to approach the court for redressal of grievances within stipulated/given time and if it is not done so and no reasonable cause is shown to justify the delay, the party approaching court with delay can be non-suited. Law of limitation is subservient law as compared to constitutional provisions and I am taking up this petition under Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and therefore has to take up the matter of delay under the principles of laches. Principle of laches to my understanding is based on the principle of equity, good conscious and natural justice. Laches according to its simplest meaning is negligence committed by person in observance- of duty or opportunity, undue delay in asserting legal right or privileges. It is further elaborated that failure of litigant to do something which has been done within reasonable time must be justified for such delay.
5. 6.It may further be mentioned the term "laches" according to 'Black's' Law Dictionary means as under: <i> "It is a French term which has been derived from (Law French, "remissness, slackness").
6. Unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim---almost always an equitable one---in a way that prejudices the party against whom relief is sought.
7. It is better to have a glimpse over the Ancient Law in order to know the right conflation of the term "Laches".
8. Early in its 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. Today, in most states there are statutes of limitation applying to suits in equity. Despite these, 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".
9. In order to thresh the term "laches" it is appropriate to visualize the same from the "Law Lexicon".
10. "Laches: Laches or lashesis an old French word for slackness or negligence, or not doing".
11. Laches in law: Laches in law is neglect to do something which by law a man is obliged to do.</i> 7.It must be mentioned here a well-known principle that law helps only the vigilant and not the indolent. The person who is sitting over, his rights, if any, and comes to the Court with unexplained delay must be non-suited, such situation also extended equitable relief to the other party to enjoy the results of judicial verdict(s), passed in his favour.
12. 8.While keeping in view the dates mentioned above relating to filing of suit, availing remedy under section 12(2) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner and is ultimately failure before learned revisional court, who declined relief to him vide order dated 26.05.2007. The petitioner has approached this Court with considerable delay i,e, 03 years 04 Months and 17 days.
13. 9.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Para No,12 of the writ petition he has mentioned the plausible cause of delay that he was involved in trying to settle the dispute/his grievances through private arrangement. I disagree with the contention of learned counsel, as once the petitioner opted not to avail judicial remedy before the Court and tried to get redressed of his grievances through private arrangement. After failing in his such attempt then with delay he has come to this Court. The justification put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not even a plausible and reasonable cause to avoid implication of laches. In addition to it, during the pendency of this petition, as is mentioned above that on account of non-availability of learned counsel for the petitioner, which also showing non-seriousness of the petitioner caused further delay.
10. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner i,e, (2004 SCM R 400) in my humble view is not providing any help to the petitioner, as he by his conduct during the pendency of the petition and by adopting another mode of private arrangement for redressal of his grievances disentitled him to claim or seek that the petition is not hit under principle of laches.
14. I also humbly observed that the other judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help because he disqualifies himself because of his own conduct shown before and after filing of the petition. On the other hand, the judgment of the Apex Court titled "Khursheed Latif and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (2010 SCM R 1081) and of this Court reported as "Mst. Lal Khatoon v. Judge, Family Court, Hasilpur, etc. (1998 M LD 850) can be relied upon. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Settlement Authority through the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another v. Mst. Akhtar Sultana"
15. (PLD 1976 SC 410). In the said judgment, the Apex Court observed that:- "The delay and laches were so palpable that they should have attracted the notice of the High Court, and the mere fact that no objection was taken at the time was no ground to omit to consider the consequence of delay and laches. It was the duty of the respondent to explain the obvious delay in moving the writ petition. Nevertheless, this Court is entitled to consider the laches on the part of the respondent and to pass such order as the High Court could or should have passed on a true consideration of the palpable delay in making the Constitution petition".
11. The nutshell of above discussion is that the instant writ petition is hit by principle of laches and as such the instant writ petition is dismissed.