1988 PLP 38 (SCMR)
MANZOORULLAH — Petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 38 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MANZOORULLAH — Petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 38 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 38 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 38 (SCMR) (MANZOORULLAH — Petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987.
- 2. We find that the certificate required under Order XXVI, Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, is not on record. The requirement of rule 6 has also not been fully satisfied as the Advocate who appeared at the hearing, has only undertaken to be present at the hearing. Unless the requirements of the rules are satisfied, the petition cannot be formally entertained. The petitioner undertakes to do so.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of this Court dated 10-12-1986 passed in C.P.1115 of 1979).
O. XXVI, Rr. 4 & 6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 188 & 212(3)--Review--Certificate under R. 4 of O. XXVI, Supreme Court Rules not on record nor requirement of R.6 thereof fully satisfied- Petitioner undertaking to satisfy the requirements of the rules--Two similar petitions for leave to appeal arising out of same impugned judgment of Service Tribunal yet to be disposed of--Review petition directed to come up before an equally large Bench because in examining relief to be granted to petitioners, that judgment was also to come up for consideration. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks review of our judgment dated 10-12-1986.
2. We find that the certificate required under Order XXVI, Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, is not on record. The requirement of rule 6 has also not been fully satisfied as the Advocate who appeared at the hearing, has only undertaken to be present at the hearing. Unless the requirements of the rules are satisfied, the petition cannot be formally entertained. The petitioner undertakes to do so.
3. Two other petitions for leave to appeal (C.P.260 and 261 of 1980) arising out of the same judgment of the Service Tribunal as was dealt with by the judgment of this Court dated 10-12-1986 have yet to be disposed of. It is only proper that it should come up before an equally large Bench because in examining the relief to be granted to these petitioners, that judgment is also to come up under consideration. S.Q./M-214/S Order accordingly.