2014 PLP 665 (SCMR)
GENERAL (R) PARVEZ MUSHARRAF — Petitioner Versus NADEEM AHMED (ADVOCATE) and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 665 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, HCJ., Nasir-ul-Mulk, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain, Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Amir Hani Muslim, Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, |
| Parties | GENERAL (R) PARVEZ MUSHARRAF — Petitioner Versus NADEEM AHMED (ADVOCATE) and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 665 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 665 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, HCJ., Nasir-ul-Mulk, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain, Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Amir Hani Muslim, Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 665 (SCMR) (GENERAL (R) PARVEZ MUSHARRAF — Petitioner Versus NADEEM AHMED (ADVOCATE) and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch. Faisal Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Shazia Yasin, Advocate and Osman Ibrahim, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ahmed Raza Kasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Barrister Muhammad Ali Saif, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Rasheed A. Rizwi, Advocate Supreme Court/Caveator and Asim Iqbal, Secretary Sindh High Court Bar Association for Respondent No.1 (in C.R.P. 329 of 2013).
- Dates of hearing: 28th, 29th and 30th January, 2014.
- NADEEM AHMED (ADVOCATE) and another---Respondents
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 188
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI
Review of Supreme Court judgment
Held, that review petitions were barred by time; case-law cited in that behalf was distinguishable and grounds urged by the petitioner neither fell within the purview of review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court nor were tenable on merit, to warrant interference in the judgment under challenge
Review petitions were dismissed, accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 188
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI
Review of Supreme Court judgment
Held, that review petitions were barred by time; case-law cited in that behalf was distinguishable and grounds urged by the petitioner neither fell within the purview of review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court nor were tenable on merit, to warrant interference in the judgment under challenge
Review petitions were dismissed, accordingly. Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch. Faisal Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Shazia Yasin, Advocate and Osman Ibrahim, Advocate for Petitioner. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ahmed Raza Kasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Barrister Muhammad Ali Saif, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Rasheed A. Rizwi, Advocate Supreme Court/Caveator and Asim Iqbal, Secretary Sindh High Court Bar Association for Respondent No.1 (in C.R.P. 329 of 2013). Dates of hearing: 28th, 29th and 30th January, 2014. SHORT ORDER For reasons to be recorded later in the detailed judgment, we find the review petitions filed by petitioner General (R) Parvez Musharraf to be barred by time and the precedent case-law cited in this behalf to be distinguishable. Even otherwise, we have considered the submissions made on merits. The grounds urged by the petitioner's learned counsel neither fall within the purview of review jurisdiction nor tenable on merit to warrant interference in the judgment under challenge. Both the petitions filed by him are accordingly dismissed. KMZ/P-2/SC Petitions dismissed.