1981 SCMR 781 (PLP)
SANAULLAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus KAMAL DIN-Respondent
| Citation | 1981 SCMR 781 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI -Review-Petition for leave to appeal withdrawn by petitioner's counsel and petition dismissed accordingly - Contention as to petition having been withdrawn without petitioner's consent and raised an important question of law hence petition for review merited admission-Held, review petition even if supposed to merit admission, petition for leave having been dismissed as withdrawn, error, if arty, lay in statement made by petitioner's counsel and no error, much less any error apparent in order dismissing petition for leave.-Review by Supreme Court. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SANAULLAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus KAMAL DIN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 SCMR 781 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 SCMR 781 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI -Review-Petition for leave to appeal withdrawn by petitioner's counsel and petition dismissed accordingly - Contention as to petition having been withdrawn without petitioner's consent and raised an important question of law hence petition for review merited admission-Held, review petition even if supposed to merit admission, petition for leave having been dismissed as withdrawn, error, if arty, lay in statement made by petitioner's counsel and no error, much less any error apparent in order dismissing petition for leave.-Review by Supreme Court. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 SCMR 781 (PLP) (SANAULLAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus KAMAL DIN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate with S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent . "
- Date of hearing : 26th Match, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI -Review-Petition for leave to appeal withdrawn by petitioner's counsel and petition dismissed accordingly - Contention as to petition having been withdrawn without petitioner's consent and raised an important question of law hence petition for review merited admission-Held, review petition even if supposed to merit admission, petition for leave having been dismissed as withdrawn, error, if arty, lay in statement made by petitioner's counsel and no error, much less any error apparent in order dismissing petition for leave.-[Review by Supreme Court].
Judgment & Decree
Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI -Review-Petition for leave to appeal withdrawn by petitioner's counsel and petition dismissed accordingly - Contention as to petition having been withdrawn without petitioner's consent and raised an important question of law hence petition for review merited admission-Held, review petition even if supposed to merit admission, petition for leave having been dismissed as withdrawn, error, if arty, lay in statement made by petitioner's counsel and no error, much less any error apparent in order dismissing petition for leave.-[Review by Supreme Court]. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate with S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent . " Date of hearing : 26th Match, 1980. DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioner had filed a petition for leave against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8th February, 1974, which came up for hearing before this Court on 18th February, 1978. As the learned counsel for the petitioner stated "that he does not wish to press the petition", the Court dismissed it with the observation : "accordingly it is dismissed as not pressed." The petitioners now seek a review of this order on .the ground that their learned counsel, Mr. Awan Mohammad Hanif Khan had been paid full fees and had withdrawn the petition without the petitioners' consent, and further that the petitioners raised an important question of law, and, therefore, merited admission. But, even if it is assumed that the petition for leave merited admission, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, because of the statement made by the. learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the error, if any, is in the statement made by the petitioners' learned counsel and there is no error much less any error apparent in the order dismissing the petition for leave as withdrawn. Petition dismissed.