1980 PLP 132 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN -'Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 132 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --O. XXVI, r. 3-Review-Review petition presented without signature of Senior Counsel being incompetent, its resubmission in Registry of Court barred by 16 days-Explanation for delay coun sel being not aware of requirement of rule-Explanation, held, not satisfactory-Petition dismissed-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188.-Review |
| Bench Members | G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN -'Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 132 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 132 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --O. XXVI, r. 3-Review-Review petition presented without signature of Senior Counsel being incompetent, its resubmission in Registry of Court barred by 16 days-Explanation for delay coun sel being not aware of requirement of rule-Explanation, held, not satisfactory-Petition dismissed-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188.-Review bench comprising: G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 132 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN -'Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fida Muhammad Khan, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate -on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 25th April, 1979.
- Fida Muhammad Khan, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate -on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑This petition filed by Muhammad Aslam Khan seeks the review of the judgment of this Court, dated 9th April, 1978. But according to the report of the Office it is barred by 16 days. The record would show that this petition was filed in the Registry of this Court on 31st May, 1978 but it was returned to the learned A. O. R. for want of signatures of the Senior Advocate, as required by rule 3 of Order XXVI of the Rules of this Court. After complying with the said objection, the petition was re‑filed in the Registry on 17th June, 1978 but on that date it had already become barred by 16 days.
- In order to seek the condonation of the delay in question, in para. 3 of the application filed in that behalf it has been alleged that "at the time of the filing of the Review Petition the petitioner was not aware of the requirement of the Rule that memo. of the Review Petition shall also be signed by the Senior Advocate who had issued the fitness certificate". In other words what has been pleaded in the said para. is the ignorance of the requirement of Rule 3 of Order XXVI of the Rules of this Court, which is to the following effect :‑
- "3. No such application shall be entertained unless it is signed by a Senior Advocate who, in this behalf, shall not be governed by the restrictions contained in clause (2) of the First Schedule to these rules."
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review of the order of this Court, 9th April, 1978). --O. XXVI, r. 3-Review-Review petition presented without signature of Senior Counsel being incompetent, its resubmission in Registry of Court barred by 16 days-Explanation for delay coun sel being not aware of requirement of rule-Explanation, held, not satisfactory-Petition dismissed-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188.-[Review]
Judgment & Decree
G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑This petition filed by Muhammad Aslam Khan seeks the review of the judgment of this Court, dated 9th April, 1978. But according to the report of the Office it is barred by 16 days. The record would show that this petition was filed in the Registry of this Court on 31st May, 1978 but it was returned to the learned A. O. R. for want of signatures of the Senior Advocate, as required by rule 3 of Order XXVI of the Rules of this Court. After complying with the said objection, the petition was re‑filed in the Registry on 17th June, 1978 but on that date it had already become barred by 16 days. In order to seek the condonation of the delay in question, in para. 3 of the application filed in that behalf it has been alleged that "at the time of the filing of the Review Petition the petitioner was not aware of the requirement of the Rule that memo. of the Review Petition shall also be signed by the Senior Advocate who had issued the fitness certificate". In other words what has been pleaded in the said para. is the ignorance of the requirement of Rule 3 of Order XXVI of the Rules of this Court, which is to the following effect :‑ "
3. No such application shall be entertained unless it is signed by a Senior Advocate who, in this behalf, shall not be governed by the restrictions contained in clause (2) of the First Schedule to these rules." It would thus be seen that by the peremptory language employed in the said rule, the review petition presented in this Court, without the signatures, of the Senior counsel was incompetent. Its resubmission in the Registry, of the Court, however, on 17th June, 1978 was out of time by 16 days fort which no satisfactory explanation had been furnished by the petitioner. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.