1985 PLP 571 (SCMR)
NAJIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 571 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXIII, Adjournment‑‑Last day of Court's session‑‑Petitioner's Advocate‑on Record seeking adjournment due to Counsel's illness while himself unable to argue without giving any valid justification‑‑Interim order having been passed to prejudice of respondent, case adjourned but interim order vacated.‑‑Adjournment. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | NAJIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 571 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 571 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXIII, Adjournment‑‑Last day of Court's session‑‑Petitioner's Advocate‑on Record seeking adjournment due to Counsel's illness while himself unable to argue without giving any valid justification‑‑Interim order having been passed to prejudice of respondent, case adjourned but interim order vacated.‑‑Adjournment. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 571 (SCMR) (NAJIBULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafaat Husain, Advocate Supreme Court (not present) and Faizanul Haq Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 1984.
- ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXIII, Adjournment‑‑Last day of Court's session‑‑Petitioner's Advocate‑on Record seeking adjournment due to Counsel's illness while himself unable to argue without giving any valid justification‑‑Interim order having been passed to prejudice of respondent, case adjourned but interim order vacated.‑‑[Adjournment].
- ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner files an application for adjournment on the ground that Mr. Shafaat Hussain learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to attend due to illness. Since ad interim order has been passed by this Court, which is to the prejudice of the respondent, we called upon the learned Advocate‑on‑Record to argue the petition himself but he is unable to do so. We see no valid justification for the inability of the learned Advocate‑on‑Record to argue the case in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, that today is the last date of the present session of this Court and adjournment of the case would really mean' postponement for nearly one month till the next session, we would not like to continue the interim order dated 16‑7‑1984, any further but in the interest of justice adjourn the hearing to a date' in office. Interim order dated 16‑7‑1984 is vacated and the respondent will be informed accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXIII, Adjournment‑‑Last day of Court's session‑‑Petitioner's Advocate‑on Record seeking adjournment due to Counsel's illness while himself unable to argue without giving any valid justification‑‑Interim order having been passed to prejudice of respondent, case adjourned but interim order vacated.‑‑[Adjournment].
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner files an application for adjournment on the ground that Mr. Shafaat Hussain learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to attend due to illness. Since ad interim order has been passed by this Court, which is to the prejudice of the respondent, we called upon the learned Advocate‑on‑Record to argue the petition himself but he is unable to do so. We see no valid justification for the inability of the learned Advocate‑on‑Record to argue the case in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, that today is the last date of the present session of this Court and adjournment of the case would really mean' postponement for nearly one month till the next session, we would not like to continue the interim order dated 16‑7‑1984, any further but in the interest of justice adjourn the hearing to a date' in office. Interim order dated 16‑7‑1984 is vacated and the respondent will be informed accordingly. M. I. Order accordingly.