P L D 2004 Supreme Court 475 (PLP)
GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2004 Supreme Court 475 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2004 Supreme Court 475 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2004 Supreme Court 475 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2004 Supreme Court 475 (PLP) (GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th March, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment of this Court dated 29‑1‑2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.800‑L of 2002 from the judgment dated 18‑9‑2002 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.565, of 1998). ‑‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, Order XXVI, R. 6‑‑‑Review petition‑‑‑Counsel who wanted to argue the review petition had not argued the petition for leave to appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order and he could not be allowed to argue the matter on behalf of the counsel who had argued the said petition for leave to appeal without sufficient lawful justification which was badly lacking in the case‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to relax the provisions of Order XXVI, R. 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑Counsel, therefore, could not be allowed to argue the matter as he could not appear in the review petition as of right which could only be done with the permission of the Court which was declined in absence of exceptional circumstances‑‑ Review petition was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, Order XXVI, R. 6‑‑‑Review petition‑‑‑Counsel who wanted to argue the review petition had not argued the petition for leave to appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order and he could not be allowed to argue the matter on behalf of the counsel who had argued the said petition for leave to appeal without sufficient lawful justification which was badly lacking in the case‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to relax the provisions of Order XXVI, R. 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑Counsel, therefore, could not be allowed to argue the matter as he could not appear in the review petition as of right which could only be done with the permission of the Court which was declined in absence of exceptional circumstances‑‑ Review petition was dismissed accordingly. Nemo for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th March, 2004. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑The criminal petition for leave to appeal was argued by Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned Advocate Supreme Court which was dismissed vide judgment impugned, review whereof has been sought by way of this review petition.
2. Mr. M. Rafiq Warriach, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared and submitted that he may be allowed to argue the matter in absence of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned Advocate Supreme Court. It was worth‑mentioning that on the previous date of hearing no such request was made by Mr. M. Rafiq Warriach, learned Advocate Supreme Court who was holding brief for Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned Advocate Supreme Court and matter was adjourned. It is an admitted feature of the case that Mr. M. Rafiq Warriach had not argued the criminal petition for leave to appeal and cannot be. allowed to argue the matter on behalf of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned Advocate Supreme Court without sufficient lawful justification which is badly lacking in this case. It is against the practice of this Court to relax the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and therefore, Mr. M. Rafiq Warraich, learned Advocate Supreme Court cannot be allowed to argue the matter as he cannot appear in the review petition as of right which could only be done with the permission of the Court which cannot be granted in absence of exceptional circumstances. The review petition is accordingly dismissed N.H.Q./G‑11/S Petition dismissed.