1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 17th June, 1974 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the writ petition (W.P. No. 348-B167) filed by the petitioner.
2. The facts which form background are that the petitioner and Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 on one side and Respondent No. 3 on the other side were litigating even before the Partition with regard to some agricultural land owned by one Iqbal Ahmad situate in Village Rasulpur, District Gurgaon (now forming part of East Punjab) which was resolved by the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court passed on 22-10-1943 (RSA No.1310 of 1940). It appears that even after this decision some further litigation took place between the petitioner and Respondents Nos.4 to 7 on the one side and Respondent No.3 on the other wherein the former obtained a decree in their favour from the civil Court on 20-4-1947. However, before the decree could be given effect the Partition of the country took place. 5-11-1962. A copy of this order was obtained on 30-11-1962 but the petitioner and Respondents Nos.4 to 7 did not challenge this order promptly but waited for more than five months before filing of a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, therefore, considering the revision petition to be unduly belated dismissed it on the ground of laches by his order dated 7-9-1963. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court (W.P. 348-R of 1967) but this was also dismissed with the observations that as the petitioner had not pursued her remedy with any measure of diligence the Rehabilitation Commissioner had, therefore, good grounds for refusing to intervene on account of her negligence.
3. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that there was no period of limitation described under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, for entertainment of revision application and as such the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was not competent to dismiss the revision application on the grounds of laches. It was further submitted that even the learned Judge in the High Court had observed that undoubtedly Respondent No.3 had obtained allotment against the claim, which did not belong to him but had dismissed the revision on a technicality. Justice, however, demanded that the case should have been decided on merits and not on a mere technicality.
5. Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the Caveator, however, drew our attention to a copy of an application, which is at page 27 of the record, that actually the entries relied upon by the Rehabilitation authorities were the entries existing in the revenue record according to the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22-10-1943 and that no injustice has, therefore, been caused to the interest of the parties. According to him an appeal .Had been preferred against the judgment of the Civil Court dated 28-4-1947 which is being relied upon by the petitioner before the District Judge, Hissar and, therefore, it was not a final judgment and that even otherwise the entries in the revenue record could not be corrected on the basis of the aforesaid judgment. Hence even on the merits the petitioner had no claim. He also pointed out that only the petitioner had filed a writ petition and not respondents Nos.4 to 7 who were earlier supporting her. The petitioner, it was submitted, had, even no case in equity.
6. Be that as it may we are inclined to agree with the learned Judge of the High Court's view that the Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner had a discretion either to entertain the revision petition and decide it on merits or to dismiss it on the ground of laches. A discretion having been exercised, which cannot be described as illegal and capricious, it was rightly not interfered with in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
7. There is, therefore, no ground to upset the order of the High Court in the present proceedings. This petition, therefore, must fail and is dismissed hereby.