1980 PLP 504 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 504 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 188-Review-Submissions relating to merits of case, if entertained, amounting to rehearing of petition for special leave to appeal--Held, rehearing of petition beyond scope of review jurisdiction-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.-Review by Supreme Court. |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Muhammad Haleem, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (c) Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 504 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (c) Supreme Court Rules, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 504 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 188-Review-Submissions relating to merits of case, if entertained, amounting to rehearing of petition for special leave to appeal--Held, rehearing of petition beyond scope of review jurisdiction-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.-Review by Supreme Court. bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Muhammad Haleem, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 504 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arif, Advocate and Amadullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 5 to 12.
- Date of hearing: 9th January, 1980.
- ---O. XXVI, r. 5 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188‑Review jurisdiction‑Presence of Advocate arguing petition for special leave‑Scope of review jurisdiction limited in scope and for that reason discretion given to Court to dispense with presence of such Advocate for substantial reasons -Insistence on presence of Advocate‑Reason for to confine him to what transpired in course of hearing.‑[Review by Supreme Court].
- Arif, Advocate and Amadullah Farooqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 5 to 12.
- But before this petition was argued, the learned counsel for the caveators‑respondents 5 to 12 raised a preliminary objection that the review petition was improperly constituted as it was not drawn and signed by the counsel who argued the petition as required by rule 5 of Order XXVI of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956. The review petition is drawn and signed by Mr. Ahmadullah Farooqi, who was the Advocate-on‑Record in Civil Petition No. K‑84 of 1977. The learned counsel for the petitioners, to get over the objection, relied on Sh. Anwarul Haq v. Mst. Surayya Parveen and 1971 S C M R 171 Mushtaq Ahmed alias Mushtaq Hussain and others v. Hakim Bibi and others 1971 S C M R 235. It is true that in these two cases this Court held that the requirement of rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, was satisfied if the junior counsel, who was present at the hearing, had drawn and signed the review petition, but this cannot be regarded as an inviolable practice as in that eventuality the object of the rule would be frustrated having regard to the limited scope of the review jurisdiction and it is for this reason that the discretion is given to the Court to dispense with the presence of the Advocate who had argued the petition. We may here observe that the insistence or the presence of the Advocate is for the reason to confine him to what transpired in the course of the hearing which purpose cannot be achieved if some other counsel were to argue the review petition. Accordingly, the rule gives discretion to dispense with the presence of the Advocate for some substantial reason and in the instant case no reason was given as to why the counsel who had argued the petition and was available had not drawn and signed the petition if there was any merit in it.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review of the order of the Court dated 21-3-1978 in C. P. 84 of 1977). -- Art. 188-Review-Submissions relating to merits of case, if entertained, amounting to rehearing of petition for special leave to appeal--Held, rehearing of petition beyond scope of review jurisdiction-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.-[Review by Supreme Court].
Art. 188-Review-Contention not raised at hearing of petition for special leave to appeal-Cannot be permitted to be raised in review-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI-[Review by Supreme Court].
O. XXVI, r. 5 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188-Review jurisdiction-Presence of Advocate arguing petition for special leave-Scope of review jurisdiction limited in scope and for that reason discretion given to Court to dispense with presence of such Advocate for substantial reasons -Insistence on presence of Advocate-Reason for to confine him to what transpired in course of hearing.-[Review by Supreme Court]. Sh. Anwarul Haq v. Mst. Surayya Parveen 1971 S C M R 171 and Mushtaq Ahmad alias Mushtaq Hussain and others v. Hakim Bibi and others 1971 S C M R 235 ref
Judgment & Decree
(c) Supreme Court Rules, 1956‑
O. XXVI, r. 5 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188‑Review jurisdiction‑Presence of Advocate arguing petition for special leave‑Scope of review jurisdiction limited in scope and for that reason discretion given to Court to dispense with presence of such Advocate for substantial reasons -Insistence on presence of Advocate‑Reason for to confine him to what transpired in course of hearing.‑[Review by Supreme Court]. Sh. Anwarul Haq v. Mst. Surayya Parveen 1971 S C M R 171 and Mushtaq Ahmad alias Mushtaq Hussain and others v. Hakim Bibi and others 1971 S C M R 235 ref Arif, Advocate and Amadullah Farooqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 5 to
12. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1980. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑The petitioners seek review of our order dated 21st of March, 1978, dismissing Civil Petition No. K‑84 of 1977, on the grounds firstly, that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner dated 5th of November, 1959, transferring the entire property to the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 5 to 12 was illegal as he was in occupation of only a portion of the property secondly, that the transfer Form of Mirza Yousaf Beg, the predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioner No. 2, was illegally rejected as he was not heard before its rejection nor was any reason given and thirdly, that the plot measuring 1100 sq. yds could not have been transferred in violation of the law restricting it to three times the plinth area. The first two submissions relate to the merits of the case and if we were to entertain them, it would amount to re‑hearing of the petition which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. As for the third, it was not raised at the hearing of the petition and, therefore, we would not permit it to be raised now consistent with the practice of the Court, as it was open to the counsel to agitate it while arguing the petition. Accordingly, on merits the review petition has no substance. But before this petition was argued, the learned counsel for the caveators‑respondents 5 to 12 raised a preliminary objection that the review petition was improperly constituted as it was not drawn and signed by the counsel who argued the petition as required by rule 5 of Order XXVI of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956. The review petition is drawn and signed by Mr. Ahmadullah Farooqi, who was the Advocate-on‑Record in Civil Petition No. K‑84 of 1977. The learned counsel for the petitioners, to get over the objection, relied on Sh. Anwarul Haq v. Mst. Surayya Parveen and 1971 S C M R 171 Mushtaq Ahmed alias Mushtaq Hussain and others v. Hakim Bibi and others 1971 S C M R
235. It is true that in these two cases this Court held that the requirement of rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, was satisfied if the junior counsel, who was present at the hearing, had drawn and signed the review petition, but this cannot be regarded as an inviolable practice as in that eventuality the object of the rule would be frustrated having regard to the limited scope of the review jurisdiction and it is for this reason that the discretion is given to the Court to dispense with the presence of the Advocate who had argued the petition. We may here observe that the insistence or the presence of the Advocate is for the reason to confine him to what transpired in the course of the hearing which purpose cannot be achieved if some other counsel were to argue the review petition. Accordingly, the rule gives discretion to dispense with the presence of the Advocate for some substantial reason and in the instant case no reason was given as to why the counsel who had argued the petition and was available had not drawn and signed the petition if there was any merit in it. The petition is, therefore, dismissed on both these grounds. Petition dismissed.