2000 PLP 1040 (YLR)
Syed ABDUL LATIF SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Raja ABDUL MAJEED, SECTION
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1040 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Basharat Ahmad Shaikh and |
| Parties | Syed ABDUL LATIF SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Raja ABDUL MAJEED, SECTION |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1040 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1040 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Basharat Ahmad Shaikh and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1040 (YLR) (Syed ABDUL LATIF SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Raja ABDUL MAJEED, SECTION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th October: 1999,
- ‑‑‑‑ O.XLVI, R.6‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review petition‑‑ Application to draw petition‑‑‑Advocate who was not counsel in main case decided by Supreme Court, but was engaged to draw, file and prosecute review petition for reversal of judgment of Supreme Court, filed application to draw petition for review of judgment of Supreme Court and on the same date filed a review petition drafted by him without permission of the Court‑‑‑Advocate who was not counsel in main case before Supreme Court was not competent to draw review petition unless Court would grant him special leave to do so as provided under R.6, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules‑‑‑Review petition and application to draw said petition were dismissed, in circumstances.
- BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, an Advocate of this Court, has moved an application under Rule 6 of Order XLYI of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules wherein he prays that he ray be allowed to draw petition for review of this Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1998, titled Raja Abdul Majid, Section Officer and 24 .others v. Syed Abdul Latif Shah and others. The learned counsel was not a counsel in the said case but was engaged by Syed Abdul Latif Shah to draw, file and prosecute the review petition for reversal of the aforementioned judgment of this Court. The learned counsel has simultaneously drafted the review petition and filed it.
- "6. Except with the special leave of the Court, no application shall be drawn by any Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review."
- A bare reading of the provision reproduced above shows that it specifically prohibits an Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case of which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made to draw a review petition unless the Court grants him special leave to do so. In the present case Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan has already drawn the review petition without provision of the Court and has also filed it in the Court. Therefore, the application moved by the learned counsel does not fall under Rule 6.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review against the judgment of this Court dated 6‑7‑1999 in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑ O.XLVI, R.6‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review petition‑‑ Application to draw petition‑‑‑Advocate who was not counsel in main case decided by Supreme Court, but was engaged to draw, file and prosecute review petition for reversal of judgment of Supreme Court, filed application to draw petition for review of judgment of Supreme Court and on the same date filed a review petition drafted by him without permission of the Court‑‑‑Advocate who was not counsel in main case before Supreme Court was not competent to draw review petition unless Court would grant him special leave to do so as provided under R.6, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules‑‑‑Review petition and application to draw said petition were dismissed, in circumstances. Barkat Ali v. The State 1972 SCMR 470 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Barkat Ali v. The State 1972 SCMR 470 ref. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 5th October: 1999, BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, an Advocate of this Court, has moved an application under Rule 6 of Order XLYI of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules wherein he prays that he ray be allowed to draw petition for review of this Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1998, titled Raja Abdul Majid, Section Officer and 24 .others v. Syed Abdul Latif Shah and others. The learned counsel was not a counsel in the said case but was engaged by Syed Abdul Latif Shah to draw, file and prosecute the review petition for reversal of the aforementioned judgment of this Court. The learned counsel has simultaneously drafted the review petition and filed it.
2. The aforementioned judgment of this Court was announced on 6th July, 1999 and application under Rule 6 was filed on 5th of Aunt, 1999. The reason on which the application is based is incorporated in para.2 of the application. However, the learned counsel also filed a review petition drafted by him on the same day. It means that the learned counsel drew the review application without permission of the Court.
3. Rule 6, under which the application has been moved, rums as follows:‑‑‑ "
6. Except with the special leave of the Court, no application shall be drawn by any Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review." A bare reading of the provision reproduced above shows that it specifically prohibits an Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case of which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made to draw a review petition unless the Court grants him special leave to do so. In the present case Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan has already drawn the review petition without provision of the Court and has also filed it in the Court. Therefore, the application moved by the learned counsel does not fall under Rule 6.
4. The application is also misconceived due to another reason. If we ignore the review petition already drawn and filed by the learned counsel and grant permission to draw the review petition, it will be of no use because the period prescribed for filing of review petition expired about two months ago.
5. We may point out that similar applications have been dismissed by this Court at previous occasions also. The Supreme Court of Pakistan also dismissed a similar review petition drawn without permission as "being against the rules", in Barkat Ali v. The State 1972 SCMR
470. The application as well as the review petition are dismissed. H.B.T./443/SC(AJ&K)