1993 PLP 2090 (MLD)
AKLASC, MUZAFFARABAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID CHAUDHRY, DEPUTY MANAGER,
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2090 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ. |
| Parties | AKLASC, MUZAFFARABAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID CHAUDHRY, DEPUTY MANAGER, |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2090 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2090 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2090 (MLD) (AKLASC, MUZAFFARABAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID CHAUDHRY, DEPUTY MANAGER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Riaz Alam, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Taj, Advocate for Non‑Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 27th June, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review of the judgment of Supreme Court dated 28‑4‑1993, in Civil Appeal No.78 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑OXLVI, R.6‑‑‑Provision of O.XLVI, R.6, prohibits a counsel other than the one who had appeared at the hearing of the case from drawing a review petition without special permission of the Supreme Court‑‑‑Where the review petition was drawn by the counsel other than the one who appeared in the case, without permission of the Court, that being violation of Rules, petition was liable to be dismissed. Muhammad Hussain v. Abdul Majid and others Civil Misc. No.5 of 1993 ref.
Judgment & Decree
BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑A review petition has been lodged on behalf of Rashid Farooq Dar praying that without changing the operative part of the judgment of this Court an observation made in the judgment may be changed so that the question of seniority of the contestants may be left open. Alongwith the review petition, an application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner that Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, Advocate, may be granted special permission to draw the review petition. The petitioner's case was conducted by another counsel when the appeal was decided. It is submitted in para. 3 of the petition that: "That the applicant intends to file review petition in this Honourable Court and has engaged Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, Advocate, as his counsel." The special permission sought in the case is provided for in Order XLVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules which is as follows: "Except with the special leave of the Court, no application shall be drawn by any Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review." No reason has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner as to why permission may be granted to draw the review petition. In Muhammad Hussain v. Abdul Majid and others (Civil Misc. No.5 1993) this Court had an occasion to observe as follows: ‑‑ "The application does not disclose any ground why Mr. Muhammad Ayub Sabir be allowed to draw review petition while normally it should be drawn by the counsel who has already appeared in the case. In absence of any ground we are unable to apply our mind whether there is a genuine reason for grant of permission prayed for." The situation in the present case is the same as in the precedent case. Therefore, the application has to be rejected and we order accordingly. The provision of rule 6 reproduced above prohibits a counsel from drawing a review petition without special permission of the Court but Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan has drawn the application without such permission. In view of this violation the review petition suffers from fatal defect and must be dismissed. The review petition is therefore dismissed. Since the respondent has not appeared there would be no order as to costs. M.BA./10/SCA??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.