1989SCMR841 (PLP)
IFTIKHAR AHMAD SIDDIQI — Petitioner Versus MALIK AKHTAR ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR841 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ, Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR AHMAD SIDDIQI — Petitioner Versus MALIK AKHTAR ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR841 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR841 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ, Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR841 (PLP) (IFTIKHAR AHMAD SIDDIQI — Petitioner Versus MALIK AKHTAR ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record and Syed M-Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1989.
- ‑‑‑OXVI, R.6‑‑Restoration of review petition dismissed for non‑prosecution‑ Advocate‑on‑record, although present yet expressed his inability to argue the matter‑‑No explanation as to why counsel who drew petition was not able to come and argue‑‑Bench dismissing review petition expressed that there was no impediment for counsel to appear in case on that day‑‑Court, in restoration application did not see any reason to take different view and thus no cause for setting aside that order having been made out, application for restoration was dismissed.
- Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record and Syed M‑Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑This application seeks the restoration of the review petition dismissed for non‑prosecution on 25th January, 1986, on the ground that none of the senior Counsel was present to prosecute the appeal. The Advocate‑on‑Record who was present also expressed his inability to argue the matter. The reason for their absence was that Mr A.K. Brohi had to argue the case but he had not come from Karachi as he was busy before the Supreme Court. There was no explanation as to why the counsel who drew the petition was not able to come. However, that day was a Saturday and there was no Court sitting at Karachi. This being so, the Bench dismissing the petition took note of it and expressed that there was no impediment for the counsel to appear in the case on that day.
Headnotes / Summary
OXVI, R.6--Restoration of review petition dismissed for non-prosecution- Advocate-on-record, although present yet expressed his inability to argue the matter--No explanation as to why counsel who drew petition was not able to come and argue--Bench dismissing review petition expressed that there was no impediment for counsel to appear in case on that day--Court, in restoration application did not see any reason to take different view and thus no cause for setting aside that order having been made out, application for restoration was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑This application seeks the restoration of the review petition dismissed for non‑prosecution on 25th January, 1986, on the ground that none of the senior Counsel was present to prosecute the appeal. The Advocate‑on‑Record who was present also expressed his inability to argue the matter. The reason for their absence was that Mr A.K. Brohi had to argue the case but he had not come from Karachi as he was busy before the Supreme Court. There was no explanation as to why the counsel who drew the petition was not able to come. However, that day was a Saturday and there was no Court sitting at Karachi. This being so, the Bench dismissing the petition took note of it and expressed that there was no impediment for the counsel to appear in the case on that day. We do not see any reason to take a different view, and, accordingly, find no cause for setting aside that order The application is accordingly dismissed. AA./1‑65/S Application dismissed.