1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, has a chequered history which has been elaborately dealt with in the order under appeal by which a writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The litigation started some twenty years ago but after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that only facts relating to the last order are necessary for disposal of the appeal.
2. ' A writ petition was filed by the present appellant to challenge an order passed by the Revising Authority, Mirpur Development Authority in respect of a plot which was initially allotted to Amir Zaman Hanfi, respondent No3 and had been subject-matter of protracted litigation. The order challenged by the appellant in his writ petition was passed by the Revising Authority on 10th of December, 1987 and the allotment earlier made in Amir Zaman Hand's favour was restored. The writ petition was filed on 20th of February, 1991. The delay in filing the writ petition, which comes to more than three years, was explained in para.10 of the writ petition by stating that a month prior to the filing of the writ petition the petitioner gathered information from the concerned office and came to know that the appeal pending before the Revising Authority had been decided on 10th of December, 1987. This explanation was rightly rejected by the High Court. If the appellant wanted to meet the question of laches by stating that he gained the knowledge about a month prior to the filing of the writ petition, he had to explain why he did not seek the necessary information during the long period which elapsed after 10th of December, 1987, when the order was pronounced.
3. ' In the memo. Of appeal and the concise statement the learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the view taken by the High Court on the question of laches. He has in this Court raised the point that the facts of the case show that it was a case of continuing wrong and, therefore, there was no question of any laches. The learned counsel vehemently pressed this point and placed reliance on a judgment of the Lahore High Court in Miraj-ud-Din v. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore (PLD 1970 Lah 569). The facts which were before the Lahore High Court were that Additional Superintendent of Police on a report furnished to him by the local police and on recommendation made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police ordered that history sheet of Miraj-ud-Din may he opened, his name may be placed in bundle 'A' and also may be entered in Register No,10, Part (II). The order was passed on 12th of May 1958 but it was challenged some nine years later. Plea of laches was rejected on two grounds, firstly that it was a case of continuing wrong and, secondly, that no other party was affected due to the delay in filing the writ petition. It was observed that delay simpliciter could not be treated as a bar.
4. ' The facts before the Lahore High Court in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Liaqat All Khan, were entirely different. The petitioner before that Court was continuously suffering on account of the fact that his name has been incorporated in bundle 'A' and Register No,10 by which certain restrictions were imposed on the petitioner. Such an order in itself is temporary in nature and cannot be perpetuated. Similarly cases of preventive detention fall in this category. Preventive detention continues till the purpose for which a person is detained has been served. In such cases confinement is said to be a continuing wrong. Orders of permanent nature creating effects, once and for all do not fall in this category. In the present case loss, if any, to the appellant was caused once when the plot was allotted to respondent No,3 and the wrong is not being repeated. If a plot belonging to the appellant had been unlawfully occupied he could have possibly pleaded that it was a continuing wrong. In the present case no such situation exists.
5. ' No other point has been urged before us. It is, therefore, clear that there is no force in the appeal and we order its dismissal with costs.