1980 PLP 962 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASUL ETC.-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1980 PLP 962 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----O. XXVL r. 5-Review - Requirements of r. 5 not observed in drawing up petition and in prosecuting it-Application seeking exemp tion from compliance with rule on ground that petitioner was very poor and unable to pay fee of Advocate-Court likely to be greatly handicapped for want of Advocate's assistance and a lenient view in matter likely to give rise to frivolous and repetitious review petitions -Permission sought for not allowed--Review by Supreme Court. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL ETC.-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1936 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 962 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1936 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 962 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----O. XXVL r. 5-Review - Requirements of r. 5 not observed in drawing up petition and in prosecuting it-Application seeking exemp tion from compliance with rule on ground that petitioner was very poor and unable to pay fee of Advocate-Court likely to be greatly handicapped for want of Advocate's assistance and a lenient view in matter likely to give rise to frivolous and repetitious review petitions -Permission sought for not allowed--Review by Supreme Court. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 962 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASUL ETC.-Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashruf Azeem, Advocate with Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 1st April 1980.
- ----O. XXVL r. 5‑Review ‑ Requirements of r. 5 not observed in drawing up petition and in prosecuting it‑Application seeking exemp tion from compliance with rule on ground that petitioner was very poor and unable to pay fee of Advocate‑Court likely to be greatly handicapped for want of Advocate's assistance and a lenient view in matter likely to give rise to frivolous and repetitious review petitions -Permission sought for not allowed‑‑[Review by Supreme Court].
- Ch. Muhammad Ashruf Azeem, Advocate with Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- SHAFI‑UR-REHMAN J -The petitioners seek review of our order dated 9‑2‑1980. whereby leave to appeal sought for by the petitioner was refused. 2. In drawing up the review petition and in prosecuting it requirement of rule 5, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules have not been observed. Instead an application has been filed seeking exemption from compliance with this rule. The only ground given in it is that the petitioners are very poor and they are unable to pay the amount of fee demanded by the learned Advocate who appeared at the hearing before us.
- 3. The rule of which exemption is sought makes a salutary provision for the preparation, presentation and prosecution of a review petition by the same counsel who argued the main petition or appeal. Unless circumstances be compelling or the absence unavoidable compliance with this rule has to take place. In the absence of the Advocate who earlier appeared in the proceedings before us, we are likely to be greatly handicapped in getting proper assistance and a lenient view in the matter is likely to give rise to frivolous '''and repetitious review petitions. The permission sought for is not allowed and the petition being not in accordance with rules applicable is rejected.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 9th February 1980 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 938 of 1974).
O. XXVL r. 5-Review - Requirements of r. 5 not observed in drawing up petition and in prosecuting it-Application seeking exemp tion from compliance with rule on ground that petitioner was very poor and unable to pay fee of Advocate-Court likely to be greatly handicapped for want of Advocate's assistance and a lenient view in matter likely to give rise to frivolous and repetitious review petitions -Permission sought for not allowed--[Review by Supreme Court].
Judgment & Decree
SHAFI‑UR-REHMAN J -The petitioners seek review of our order dated 9‑2‑1980. whereby leave to appeal sought for by the petitioner was refused.
2. In drawing up the review petition and in prosecuting it requirement of rule 5, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules have not been observed. Instead an application has been filed seeking exemption from compliance with this rule. The only ground given in it is that the petitioners are very poor and they are unable to pay the amount of fee demanded by the learned Advocate who appeared at the hearing before us.
3. The rule of which exemption is sought makes a salutary provision for the preparation, presentation and prosecution of a review petition by the same counsel who argued the main petition or appeal. Unless circumstances be compelling or the absence unavoidable compliance with this rule has to take place. In the absence of the Advocate who earlier appeared in the proceedings before us, we are likely to be greatly handicapped in getting proper assistance and a lenient view in the matter is likely to give rise to frivolous '''and repetitious review petitions. The permission sought for is not allowed and the petition being not in accordance with rules applicable is rejected. Petition rejected.