1985 PLP 1965 (SCMR)
JALILUDDIN — Petitioner Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1965 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | JALILUDDIN — Petitioner Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1965 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1965 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1965 (SCMR) (JALILUDDIN — Petitioner Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 7.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1985.
- ‑‑‑Art.185 (3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. IV, r. 30‑‑Frivolous petitions for leave to appeal‑‑Frequently filed by an Advocate‑on -Record‑‑Conduct unbecoming of an A.O.R. of Supreme Court‑‑A.O.R. cautioned to refrain from such conduct otherwise would make himself laible to action under provisions of r. 30, 0. IV of Supreme Court Rules.
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 7.
- ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This a petition for leave to( appeal from the order of Sind High Court dated 31‑5‑1984 dismissing an appeal filed by Habib Bank Ltd. and Nasim Ahmed, respondents 1 and 2 herein, as withdrawn by the appellants. Petitioner was a respondent in the aforesaid appeal, being respondent 5, and his grievance against the order of the High Court, as urged by Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing for him, is that he was not heard before the impugned order was passed.
- Since this petition, in our view, is totally frivolous, we questioned Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record, as to how the petitioner can be said to have been prejudiced by the grant of the request made by the appellants in the High Court for the withdrawal of the appeal, but he was unable to furnish any satisfactory answer. This petition is totally frivolous and is dismissed.
- We cannot help making the observation that from our experience we find that Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record of this Court is in the habit of filing totally frivolous litigations in this Court. We have administered oral warnings to him in the past that he should refrain from filing frivolous petitions for leave to appeal from the judgments of the High Court, but all these have proved to be in vain. His conduct of filing frivolous petitions in this Court is unbecoming as an Advocate‑on‑Record of this Court. We are, therefore, compelled to record these observations in writing in the hope that he will refrain from such conduct in the future. We have also administered the oral caution to him that if he filed a frivolous petition in this Court in the future he will make himself liable to action under the provisions of rule 30 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Dismissal of appeal by High Court on being withdrawn by appellants--Order challenged by one of respondents on ground that he was not heard--Petitioner neither had a right of being heard before passing of said order nor his rights prejudiced--Petition for leave to appeal being totally frivolous, dismissed.
Art.185 (3)--Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. IV, r. 30--Frivolous petitions for leave to appeal--Frequently filed by an Advocate-on -Record--Conduct unbecoming of an A.O.R. of Supreme Court--A.O.R. cautioned to refrain from such conduct otherwise would make himself laible to action under provisions of r. 30,
0. IV of Supreme Court Rules.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This a petition for leave to( appeal from the order of Sind High Court dated 31‑5‑1984 dismissing an appeal filed by Habib Bank Ltd. and Nasim Ahmed, respondents 1 and 2 herein, as withdrawn by the appellants. Petitioner was a respondent in the aforesaid appeal, being respondent 5, and his grievance against the order of the High Court, as urged by Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing for him, is that he was not heard before the impugned order was passed. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the appellants in the High Court had as much right to file the appeal as to withdraw the same, and it is also not shown how the interests of toe petitioner, in his capacity as a respondent in the appeal, have been adversely affected the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. Petitioner not having challenged the impugned judgment under appeal before the High Court, we do not see how on these facts it can be said that he had a right of being heard before the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court as withdrawn on the ground that appellants themselves did not wish to press the appeal and prayed for its withdrawal. Since this petition, in our view, is totally frivolous, we questioned Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record, as to how the petitioner can be said to have been prejudiced by the grant of the request made by the appellants in the High Court for the withdrawal of the appeal, but he was unable to furnish any satisfactory answer. This petition is totally frivolous and is dismissed. We cannot help making the observation that from our experience we find that Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record of this Court is in the habit of filing totally frivolous litigations in this Court. We have administered oral warnings to him in the past that he should refrain from filing frivolous petitions for leave to appeal from the judgments of the High Court, but all these have proved to be in vain. His conduct of filing frivolous petitions in this Court is unbecoming as an Advocate‑on‑Record of this Court. We are, therefore, compelled to record these observations in writing in the hope that he will refrain from such conduct in the future. We have also administered the oral caution to him that if he filed a frivolous petition in this Court in the future he will make himself liable to action under the provisions of rule 30 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules. M.I. Petition dismissed.