1984 PLP (2) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus DOST MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑ XIV_ r.6‑‑Review‑‑Petition against dismissal of review petition‑‑ Counsel who argued case not present in Court‑‑Petition dismissed for non‑compliance of relevant rules. ‑‑Review by Supreme Court. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus DOST MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑ XIV_ r.6‑‑Review‑‑Petition against dismissal of review petition‑‑ Counsel who argued case not present in Court‑‑Petition dismissed for non‑compliance of relevant rules. ‑‑Review by Supreme Court. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (2) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus DOST MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑ ‑‑‑ XIV_ r.6‑‑Review‑‑Petition against dismissal of review petition‑‑ Counsel who argued case not present in Court‑‑Petition dismissed for non‑compliance of relevant rules. ‑‑[Review by Supreme Court].
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ These petitions are directed against the dismissal of petitioners' Criminal Review Petitions Nos. 22/81 and 54/81, by an order dated 2‑7‑1983. This order reads as follows:‑ "Rule 6 of Order XVI of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has not been complied with as the learned counsel who argued the case is not present in the Court. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed. "
2. Unfortunately, even in the present petitions the counsel who argued the case is not present in the Court. We are, therefore, A constrained to dismiss the same for non‑compliance with the relevant) rules. S. Q. Petitions dismissed