ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No.D-401 of 2009

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on CMA No. 1745/10

2. For orders on CMA No. 1746/10

19^th February, 2010.

Mr. Abdul Razaque Nawal Advocate for the petitioner

>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<

(1) Granted.

(2) This is an application under section 114, 151 CPC read with Article 199 of the Constitution. The application seeks review of the order dated 14.5.2009 passed by a Division Bench of which one of us (Gulzar Ahmed, J) was the member. The order was passed on 14.5.2009 while the review application has been filed on 13.2.2010.

Learned Counsel himself admits that Article 162 of the Limitation Act provides for the limitation period for filing of the review application which is 20 days from the date of the order. The Counsel states that the question of limitation for filing of the review application be considered on the basis of principle of laches and in this respect he has relied upon the judgment reported as 2003 PLC (CS) 201 and PLD 1993 Karachi 237. It is unfortunate that the Counsel himself concedes to the position that limitation for filing of the review application is governed by the Article 162 of the Limitation Act but relies on principle of laches which apparently has no application. The principle of laches is normally applied for the constitutional petition in which no limitation period is provided by the statute whereas a specific limitation period is provided for filing of review application in law as noted above. No explanation whatsoever is given by the Counsel for the delay in filing of the review application. He states that the limitation may not be considered as a stumbling block for the petitioner for the reason that the Counsel who appeared for the petitioner on 14.5.2009 could not assist the Court properly. This is hardly a ground to be considered for condoning the delay in filing of review application. Rather such ground itself admits that the Court passed the order as argued by the petitioner’s counsel. There being no explanation whatsoever for delay in making of the review application, therefore, we find the same to be not maintainable and is dismissed.

J U D G E

Aamir/PS