1976 PLP 300 (SCMR)
Mufti MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 300 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ O. XXVI, rr. 3 & 5 and first Sched., cl. (2)‑‑‑Review Advocate M instructed by Advocate‑on. Record F appearing urn petitioner's behalf at hearing of petition for special leave not drawing up review petition nor any of such Advocates present in Court‑ Review petition not properly presented‑Certificate of Senior Advocate F (never appearing at hearing of Petition for Leave to Appeal) not indicating his having settled petition for review in consultation with any junior Advocate‑Order permitting petitioner to appear in person‑Cannot be construed as doing away with requirements of r. 5‑Petition for review, held, not entertain able in circumstances.Review. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mufti MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 300 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 300 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ O. XXVI, rr. 3 & 5 and first Sched., cl. (2)‑‑‑Review Advocate M instructed by Advocate‑on. Record F appearing urn petitioner's behalf at hearing of petition for special leave not drawing up review petition nor any of such Advocates present in Court‑ Review petition not properly presented‑Certificate of Senior Advocate F (never appearing at hearing of Petition for Leave to Appeal) not indicating his having settled petition for review in consultation with any junior Advocate‑Order permitting petitioner to appear in person‑Cannot be construed as doing away with requirements of r. 5‑Petition for review, held, not entertain able in circumstances.Review. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 300 (SCMR) (Mufti MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Riaz Ahmad. Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th March 1976,
- ‑‑ O. XXVI, rr. 3 & 5 and first Sched., cl. (2)‑‑‑Review Advocate M instructed by Advocate‑on. Record F appearing urn petitioner's behalf at hearing of petition for special leave not drawing up review petition nor any of such Advocates present in Court‑ Review petition not properly presented‑Certificate of Senior Advocate F (never appearing at hearing of Petition for Leave to Appeal) not indicating his having settled petition for review in consultation with any junior Advocate‑Order permitting petitioner to appear in person‑Cannot be construed as doing away with requirements of r. 5‑Petition for review, held, not entertain able in circumstances.[Review].
- SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑‑This review petition dose not appear to have been tiled in accordance with the Rule; of this Court Rules, 3 and 5 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rule‑: prescribe that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is signed by a Senior Advocate; and except with the special leave of the Court no application for review 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, and that such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review.
- At the hearing of the petition for special leave. Mr. Muhammad Arif, Advocate instructed by Mr. Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record, appeared on behalf of the petitioners. None of these Advocate has drawn up his petition and none of them is present on court. It does not appear from the certificate of the senior Advocate, Ch Fazal Din who never appeared at he hearing of the petition for leave to appeal that he had settled the petition for review in consultation with any Junior Advocate. Clause (2) of the First schedule to the supreme court Rules states as follows:---
- A senior Advocate shall not accept instruction to draw pleadings, affidavits advice on evidence or to do any drafting work of an analogous kind but this prohibition shall not extend to setting any such matters as aforesaid in consultation with a Junior.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the order of this Court dated the 10th of October 1973, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 192 W 1973. against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court. dated, the, l 5th of February 1973, in L. P. A. No. 16‑C of 1912). ‑‑ O. XXVI, rr. 3 & 5 and first Sched., cl. (2)‑‑‑Review Advocate M instructed by Advocate‑on. Record F appearing urn petitioner's behalf at hearing of petition for special leave not drawing up review petition nor any of such Advocates present in Court‑ Review petition not properly presented‑Certificate of Senior Advocate F (never appearing at hearing of Petition for Leave to Appeal) not indicating his having settled petition for review in consultation with any junior Advocate‑Order permitting petitioner to appear in person‑Cannot be construed as doing away with requirements of r. 5‑Petition for review, held, not entertain able in circumstances.[Review]. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1956‑‑
O. XVI, rr. 3 & 5 and Service Tribunals Ordinance (XV of 1973), S. 6‑Review‑Abatement‑Contention that in view of S. 6 of Ordinance XV of 1973 application for leave to appeal pending before Supreme Court before commencement of Ordinance abated‑‑ Point never raised at hearing of leave petition‑Petition for leave, even if abated, point of no help to petitioner, being no ground for allowing review petition,‑[Review‑‑Abatements‑‑Civil service]. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑‑This review petition dose not appear to have been tiled in accordance with the Rule; of this Court Rules, 3 and 5 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rule‑: prescribe that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is signed by a Senior Advocate; and except with the special leave of the Court no application for review 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, and that such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review. At the hearing of the petition for special leave. Mr. Muhammad Arif, Advocate instructed by Mr. Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record, appeared on behalf of the petitioners. None of these Advocate has drawn up his petition and none of them is present on court. It does not appear from the certificate of the senior Advocate, Ch Fazal Din who never appeared at he hearing of the petition for leave to appeal that he had settled the petition for review in consultation with any Junior Advocate. Clause (2) of the First schedule to the supreme court Rules states as follows:
A senior Advocate shall not accept instruction to draw pleadings, affidavits advice on evidence or to do any drafting work of an analogous kind but this prohibition shall not extend to setting any such matters as aforesaid in consultation with a Junior. There is an order by Mr. Justice Waheeduddin Ahmed, J. whereby the petition is merely permitted to appears in person. Do not think that this order can be construed as doing away with the requirement of rules of Order XXVI of the Rules of this court. There is also no substance in the petition. It has been contended before us that in view of the provision of section 6 of Ordinance XV of 1973 which wax promulgated on the 15th of August 1973 the application for leave to appeal pending before this court before the commencement of the Ordinance has abated. The petition for special leave to appeal had been filed on the 10th of May 1973 and was dismissed on the 10th of October 1973, this point was not raised at the time of the hearing of the leave petition. Assuming, however, that the petition for leave had abated, it dose not, in any way, help the petitioner in his present petition. His petition for leave was dismissed. If any relief by way of appeal to the competent Service Tribunal is still available and not barred by time the petitioner is at liberty to pursue it. This is, however, no ground for allowing the review petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.