2011 SCMR 307 (PLP)
SHABIR AHMED BHURGRI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 307 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Perwez and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ |
| Parties | SHABIR AHMED BHURGRI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 307 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 307 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Perwez and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 307 (PLP) (SHABIR AHMED BHURGRI and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- ZIA PERWEZ, J.---Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners has referred to the order dated 25-2-2009 whereby Civil Petition No. D-54 of 2006 was dismissed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh when Mr. Sundardas learned counsel for petitioner, after arguing the matter at some length made a statement that he would not like to press the petition and on the statement said petition was dismissed along with listed application. From the available record it appears that on the subsequent date when the application M.A. No. 873 of 2009 came up for hearing before another Bench of the High Court, Mr. Sundardas learned counsel was also present in the Court. He confirmed that he had informed the petitioner that the petition was dismissed as not pressed and after considering the fact learned Bench also dismissed the application for restoration/ recall of order.
- 2. Today it has been contended by Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court that ends of natural justice demand that mistake may be rectified and parties may not be made to suffer on the consequence of mistake he has also placed reliance on the case of Sh. Bashir Ahmed v. Muddassar Hayat and others (2005 SCMR 1120). Where, while dismissing the petition with such circumstances question of authority and power of the learned counsel to withdraw the case was considered by Bench of this Court. The present petition does not pertain to withdrawal of proceedings from the Court in fact the case was argued at some length before the statement was made by learned counsel. On being asked Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned counsel is not in a position to produce any precedent calling for interference where during the course of argument the learned counsel does not press any point or the case which is common practice when no case is made out on merits. Learned counsel has also not been able to point out any mistake in the proceedings which cannot be equated with the statement made consciously and deliberately by the learned Advocate before the Bench of the High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Order dated 25-2-2006 of the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad passed in Constitution Petition No. 54-D of 2006).
Art. 185(3)
Counsel for the petitioners had referred to order whereby constitutional petition was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court, when counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter at some length made statement that he would not like to press the petition and on said statement the petition was dismissed
When the said application came up for hearing before another Bench of High Court, counsel for the petitioner had confirmed that he had informed the petitioner that petition was dismissed as not pressed
Counsel for the petitioner had contended that ends of natural justice demanded that mistake could be rectified and parties could not be made to suffer on the consequence of mistake
Counsel was not in a position to produce any law calling for interference where during the course of argument the counsel did not press any point or the case, which was common practice when no case was made out on merits
Counsel had also not been able to point out any mistake in the proceedings which could not be equated with the statement made consciously and deliberately by the counsel before the Bench of the High Court
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Sh. Bashir Ahmed v. Muddassar Hayat and others 2005 SCMR 1120 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA PERWEZ, J.
Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners has referred to the order dated 25-2-2009 whereby Civil Petition No. D-54 of 2006 was dismissed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh when Mr. Sundardas learned counsel for petitioner, after arguing the matter at some length made a statement that he would not like to press the petition and on the statement said petition was dismissed along with listed application. From the available record it appears that on the subsequent date when the application M.A. No. 873 of 2009 came up for hearing before another Bench of the High Court, Mr. Sundardas learned counsel was also present in the Court. He confirmed that he had informed the petitioner that the petition was dismissed as not pressed and after considering the fact learned Bench also dismissed the application for restoration/ recall of order.
2. Today it has been contended by Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court that ends of natural justice demand that mistake may be rectified and parties may not be made to suffer on the consequence of mistake he has also placed reliance on the case of Sh. Bashir Ahmed v. Muddassar Hayat and others (2005 SCMR 1120). Where, while dismissing the petition with such circumstances question of authority and power of the learned counsel to withdraw the case was considered by Bench of this Court. The present petition does not pertain to withdrawal of proceedings from the Court in fact the case was argued at some length before the statement was made by learned counsel. On being asked Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned counsel is not in a position to produce any precedent calling for interference where during the course of argument the learned counsel does not press any point or the case which is common practice when no case is made out on merits. Learned counsel has also not been able to point out any mistake in the proceedings which cannot be equated with the statement made consciously and deliberately by the learned Advocate before the Bench of the High Court.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. H.B.T./S-46/SC Petition dismissed.