1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The dispute relates to the transfer of the house No. U-113, Bazar Talwaran, Rawalpindi. It was transferred to the petitioner on his N. C. H. Form on 26-11-1959 and P. T. O. Was issued to him on 18-7-1963. Later, on the basis of agreement dated 19-6-1963 executed by the parties which was treated as a deed of association, the house was transferred to the respondent and another P. T. O. Dated 31-10-1964 and P. T. D. Dated 29-6-1965 were issued in his favour.
2. On 4-11-1977, petitioner made an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi that respondent had obtained transfer documents of the property on misrepresentation and these be cancelled. Learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner held by the order dated 14-12-1977 that since P. T. D. Was issued to respondent, he was not competent to re-open the case.
3. Petitioner then filed a suit against respondent for declaration that he was the lawful transferee of the house and transfer documents issued to respondent were void in law.
4. Petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 800-R of 1976 in Lahore High Court seeking the same relief, but it was dismissed on 10-7-1978, inter alia, on the ground that it suffered from laches covering period over 14 years for which no explanation was offered by the petitioner.
5. Petitioner's suit was also dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. Appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree of the trial Judge was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Rawalpindi, and his revision application in Lahore High Court also failed for the reason, inter alia, that the suit was hopelessly time-barred. .
6. Mr. Bashir Abroad Ansari learned counsel appearing in support. Of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court raised several pleas, but there is no escape from the conclusion that the suit filed by the petitioner was clearly barred by time. It is in evidence that petitioner delivered possession of the house to respondent during 1963-64, and after his return from India in 1965 he was4iving in Rawalpindi, yet he filed the suit not earlier than April, 1978.
7. According to the learned trial Judge "there is no explanation on the record as to why the plaintiff kept silent for such a long time". This was also the view of the Appellate Court and the High Court.
8. On this state of record, we do-not see how petitioner can expect this Court to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
9. The petition is dismissed in limine.