2025 SCMR 279 (PLP)
PAKISTAN TEHREEK-I-INSAF, through authorized person and others — Petitioners Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, through Special Secretary, Islamabad and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 SCMR 279 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN TEHREEK-I-INSAF, through authorized person and others — Petitioners Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, through Special Secretary, Islamabad and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVIIof 2023), (b) Practice and procedure |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 SCMR 279 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVIIof 2023), (b) Practice and procedure as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 SCMR 279 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 SCMR 279 (PLP) (PAKISTAN TEHREEK-I-INSAF, through authorized person and others — Petitioners Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, through Special Secretary, Islamabad and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioners.
- Syed Ahmed Hassan Shah, Advocate Supreme Court along with/ for Respondent No. 3.
- ----S. 6---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Review petition---Adjournment sought by counsel---Grounds---Family engagement---In the application for adjournment the nature of the pressing family engagement was not disclosed---Review petitioners were represented by Advocates of the Supreme Court ('ASCs')---Therefore, if the Senior Advocate had some pressing family engagement, then any of the other ASCs could have attended and proceeded with the present case---Moreover, section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 now enables engagement of other counsel in a review petition, which was not permissible earlier---Supreme Court observed that in the circumstances, it was not persuaded to adjourn the case, however, in the interest of justice and only by way of indulgence it was doing so; that no further request for adjournment would be entertained, and it was expected that the case would proceed on the next date---Case was adjourned accordingly.
- 2. An 'Application for Adjournment' has been submitted by Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record on the ground that, 'Mr. Hamid Khan, Senior ASC, has pressing family engagement at Lahore on 11.10.2024'. The nature of the pressing family enagagement is not disclosed. The learned AOR is also not in attendence. Learned counsel must know that merely filing an adjournment application does not mean that the case will be adjourned.
- 3. The petitioners were presented by Advocates of the Supreme Court ('ASCs') a couple of whom themselves are ASCs, respectively, Senior Advocate Mr. Hamid Khan, and ASCs Messrs Syed Ali Zafar, Gohar Ali Khan, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Niazullah Khan Niazi. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua was the Advocate-on-Record earlier and in the review petition it is Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad. Therefore, if Senior Advocate Mr. Hamid Khan, as stated, had some pressing family engagement any of the other learned ASCs could have attended and proceeded with the case. Moreover, section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 now enables engagement of other counsel in a review petition, which was not permissible earlier.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 6
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188
Adjournment sought by counsel
Family engagement
In the application for adjournment the nature of the pressing family engagement was not disclosed
Review petitioners were represented by Advocates of the Supreme Court ('ASCs')
Therefore, if the Senior Advocate had some pressing family engagement, then any of the other ASCs could have attended and proceeded with the present case
Moreover, section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 now enables engagement of other counsel in a review petition, which was not permissible earlier
Supreme Court observed that in the circumstances, it was not persuaded to adjourn the case, however, in the interest of justice and only by way of indulgence it was doing so; that no further request for adjournment would be entertained, and it was expected that the case would proceed on the next date
Case was adjourned accordingly.
Scope
Merely filing an adjournment application does not mean that the case will be adjourned.
Judgment & Decree
Review of the short order of this Court, announced on 13 January 2024, and of its detailed reasons, which were issued on 25 January 2024 is sought through this review petition.
2. An 'Application for Adjournment' has been submitted by Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record on the ground that, 'Mr. Hamid Khan, Senior ASC, has pressing family engagement at Lahore on 11.10.2024'. The nature of the pressing family enagagement is not disclosed. The learned AOR is also not in attendence. Learned counsel must know that merely filing an adjournment application does not mean that the case will be adjourned.
3. The petitioners were presented by Advocates of the Supreme Court ('ASCs') a couple of whom themselves are ASCs, respectively, Senior Advocate Mr. Hamid Khan, and ASCs Messrs Syed Ali Zafar, Gohar Ali Khan, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Niazullah Khan Niazi. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua was the Advocate-on-Record earlier and in the review petition it is Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad. Therefore, if Senior Advocate Mr. Hamid Khan, as stated, had some pressing family engagement any of the other learned ASCs could have attended and proceeded with the case. Moreover, section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 now enables engagement of other counsel in a review petition, which was not permissible earlier.
4. In the circumstances, we are not persuaded to adjourn the case, however, in the interest of justice and only by way of indulgence we do so but make it clear that no further request for adjournment will be entertained, and we except that the case to proceed on the next date.
5. In view of the fact that two Members of this Bench will not be available at Islamabad next week, we adjourn this case to Monday, 21 October 2024. Copy of this order be sent to the learned ASCs, learned AORs and to the review petitioners. MWA/P-16/SC Order accordingly.