2002 PLP 1543 (SCMR)
GHULAM JAFFAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CANAL MAGISTRATE, (II‑CLASS) and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1543 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, Actg. C.J, Ch. Muhammad Arif and |
| Parties | GHULAM JAFFAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CANAL MAGISTRATE, (II‑CLASS) and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Counsel and client‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1543 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Counsel and client‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1543 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, Actg. C.J, Ch. Muhammad Arif and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1543 (SCMR) (GHULAM JAFFAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CANAL MAGISTRATE, (II‑CLASS) and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th November, 2000.
- 2. A perusal of the impugned judgment clearly shows that Mr. Moulvi Sultan Alam, Advocate for the petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.218 of 1986 and 6497 of 1995) was present in the Court and that he had accepted the proposal made by the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal, from the judgment dated 23‑2‑2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petition No.218/86). ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Counsel and client, relationship of‑‑‑Acceptance of offer without authority‑‑‑Remedy‑‑‑Counsel of the petitioners was on leave‑‑‑Constitutional petition tiled by the petitioner was fixed for hearing‑‑‑Respondent made an offer, some other counsel who had appeared in another connected petition accepted the offer on behalf of the petitioners also‑‑‑High Court on the basis of acceptance of the offer disposed of the petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Three courses were open to the petitioners to be resorted to; firstly the petitioners might file a suit for damages against the counsel Who accepted the proposal of the respondents; secondly application under SA2(2), C.P.C., and thirdly review petition under O.XLVII, R.1, C.P.C.‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Counsel and client, relationship of‑‑‑Acceptance of offer without authority‑‑‑Remedy‑‑‑Counsel of the petitioners was on leave‑‑‑Constitutional petition tiled by the petitioner was fixed for hearing‑‑‑Respondent made an offer, some other counsel who had appeared in another connected petition accepted the offer on behalf of the petitioners also‑‑‑High Court on the basis of acceptance of the offer disposed of the petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Three courses were open to the petitioners to be resorted to; firstly the petitioners might file a suit for damages against the counsel Who accepted the proposal of the respondents; secondly application under SA2(2), C.P.C., and thirdly review petition under O.XLVII, R.1, C.P.C.‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th November, 2000. The sole ground taken in this petition for leave to appeal against judgment dated 23‑2‑2000 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petition No.218 of 1986, is that the learned counsel for the petitioners was on leave and the learned Judge as well as the learned counsel for the other writ petitioners were informed of his absence but in spite of that the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition of the petitioners presuming that the other learned counsel appearing in the connected causes had the authority to make a statement on behalf of the petitioners as well.
2. A perusal of the impugned judgment clearly shows that Mr. Moulvi Sultan Alam, Advocate for the petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.218 of 1986 and 6497 of 1995) was present in the Court and that he had accepted the proposal made by the respondents.
3. Be that as it may, there are three courses open to the petitioners to be resorted to. First, they may tile a suit for damages against the learned counsel who accepted the proposal of the respondents, secondly, an application under section 12(2). C.P.C. and thirdly a review petition under Order XLVII, rule I, C.P.C. '
4. With the above observations the petition is dismissed and leave declined. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./G‑115/S Petition dismissed.