1981 PLP 216 (SCMR)
ABDUL RAZZAQ-Appellant Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, COLONIES, PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1981 PLP 216 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Adjourn ment-Telegram sent by Advocate-on-Record praying for adjourn ment of case on ground that newly appointed Advocate could not appear-Such ground, held, not sufficient reason for granting adjourn ment and Advocate-on-Record should have engaged counsel in time and such counsel should have put in appearance and not prayed for adjournment without showing sufficient cause for same.-Adjourn ment. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RAZZAQ-Appellant Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, COLONIES, PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 216 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 216 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Adjourn ment-Telegram sent by Advocate-on-Record praying for adjourn ment of case on ground that newly appointed Advocate could not appear-Such ground, held, not sufficient reason for granting adjourn ment and Advocate-on-Record should have engaged counsel in time and such counsel should have put in appearance and not prayed for adjournment without showing sufficient cause for same.-Adjourn ment. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 216 (SCMR) (ABDUL RAZZAQ-Appellant Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, COLONIES, PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate and S. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Advocate-General I (Punjab) for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing : 23rd November, 1980.
- -- Read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Adjourn ment-Telegram sent by Advocate-on-Record praying for adjourn ment of case on ground that newly appointed Advocate could not appear-Such ground, held, not sufficient reason for granting adjourn ment and Advocate-on-Record should have engaged counsel in time and such counsel should have put in appearance and not prayed for adjournment without showing sufficient cause for same.-[Adjourn ment].
- ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.--When this appeal came up for hearing before us today, a telegram sent boy the learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, namely, Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, was placed before us, praying in for adjournment on the ground that the newly engaged counsel could not appear today. We consider that this is not at all a sufficient reason for granting adjournment, as thee learned Advocate-on-Record should have engaged the counsel in time, and the latter should have put an appearance today, and not prayed for an adjournment without showing sufficient cause for the same. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution, with no orders as to costs.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 4-I1-1976 in Writ Petition No. 1476 of 1978). -- Read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Adjourn ment-Telegram sent by Advocate-on-Record praying for adjourn ment of case on ground that newly appointed Advocate could not appear-Such ground, held, not sufficient reason for granting adjourn ment and Advocate-on-Record should have engaged counsel in time and such counsel should have put in appearance and not prayed for adjournment without showing sufficient cause for same.-[Adjourn ment]. Respondent No. 4 in person.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.--When this appeal came up for hearing before us today, a telegram sent boy the learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, namely, Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, was placed before us, praying in for adjournment on the ground that the newly engaged counsel could not appear today. We consider that this is not at all a sufficient reason for granting adjournment, as thee learned Advocate-on-Record should have engaged the counsel in time, and the latter should have put an appearance today, and not prayed for an adjournment without showing sufficient cause for the same. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution, with no orders as to costs. The interim order issued by this Court on the 18th of December, 1977, as to the maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the appeal is hereby recalled. Appeal dismissed.