P L D 2022 Supreme Court 247 (PLP)
CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., HARIPUR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2022 Supreme Court 247 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, C.J. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ |
| Parties | CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., HARIPUR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2022 Supreme Court 247 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2022 Supreme Court 247 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, C.J. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2022 Supreme Court 247 (PLP) (CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., HARIPUR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----O. XIX, R. 2---Petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court---Dismissed for non-prosecution---Adjournment sought by counsel without presenting medical certificate---Request for adjournment was made by counsel for the petitioner who allegedly was not feeling well---Present matter was twice adjourned on request of counsel for petitioner---No medical certificate was available on record to indicate his present illness---Advocate-on-Record (AOR) submitted that the application for adjournment was filed directly by the counsel for petitioner---Consequently, the AOR had no instructions in the matter and was not prepared with arguments in the case---In such circumstances, present matter was not be adjourned as it has not progressed for three successive dates of hearing on account of the unavailability of the counsel for the petitioner---Petition for leave to appeal was, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution.
- Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XIX, R. 2
Petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court
Dismissed for non-prosecution
Adjournment sought by counsel without presenting medical certificate
Request for adjournment was made by counsel for the petitioner who allegedly was not feeling well
Present matter was twice adjourned on request of counsel for petitioner
No medical certificate was available on record to indicate his present illness
Advocate-on-Record (AOR) submitted that the application for adjournment was filed directly by the counsel for petitioner
Consequently, the AOR had no instructions in the matter and was not prepared with arguments in the case
In such circumstances, present matter was not be adjourned as it has not progressed for three successive dates of hearing on account of the unavailability of the counsel for the petitioner
Petition for leave to appeal was, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J.
There is a request for adjournment by the learned counsel for the petitioner who is not feeling well. The matter was twice adjourned on his request on 13.10.2021 and on 12.11.2021. There is no medical certificate available on record to indicate his present illness.
2. The learned AOR submits that the application for adjournment was filed directly by the learned counsel. Consequently, he has no instructions in the matter and is not prepared with arguments in the case. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to adjourn this matter as it has not progressed for three successive dates of hearing on account of the unavailability of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. In order that the matter comes to the attention of the learned Members of the Bar this order shall be reported on the website. MWA/C-6/SC Petition dismisse