1994SCMR1948 (PLP)
Ex‑Hav. Mirza MUSHTAQ BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GENERAL COURT MARTIAL‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994SCMR1948 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Ex‑Hav. Mirza MUSHTAQ BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GENERAL COURT MARTIAL‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR1948 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR1948 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR1948 (PLP) (Ex‑Hav. Mirza MUSHTAQ BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GENERAL COURT MARTIAL‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑O.111, R. 4(2) & (5)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑‑ Constitutional petition filed by petitioner‑‑‑Dismissal for non‑prosecution‑‑ Application for restoration of Constitutional petition‑‑‑Dismissal by High Court on ground that although petitioner was absent on the date of hearing, yet he was represented by a senior counsel who should have attended the Court and no valid explanation had been offered for his absence‑‑‑Validity‑‑ High Court had taken note of the fact that cause list was issued and counsel had full notice of the date of hearing, therefore, it was his duty to pursue the case‑‑‑Even in cases where papers had been taken away by the client (as alleged) it was the duty of counsel to appear on the date of hearing till such time he withdrew his power or it was cancelled according to rules by the client‑‑‑Order in question of High Court did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or want of jurisdiction‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
- ‑‑‑‑ Even in cases where papers had been taken away by the client it was the duty of counsel to appear on the date of hearing till such time he withdrew his power or it was cancelled according to the rules by the client‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.111, R. 4(2).
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993.
- Afzal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Dy, Attorney‑General (on Notice).
- 2. The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging his conviction by the Military Court which was confirmed on 18‑10‑1976 imposing life imprisonment for the murder of Ex‑Hav. Zulfiqar Khan. He seems to have served out the sentence. He filed the writ petition in the year 1979. It was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 4‑5‑1991. In the application it was alleged that the petitioner received the summons from the High Court on 11‑5‑1991 whereas the hearing was fixed on 4‑5‑1991 and therefore he could not attend the Court. The learned Judges were of the view that although the petitioner was absent, he was represented by a senior counsel, who should have attend the Court and no valid explanation has been offered for his absence. The petitioner has stated that he had taken away the file from the learned counsel and therefore he did not appear on the date of hearing. The learned Judges have taken note of the fact that cause list was issued and the advocate had full notice of the date of hearing and it was his duty to pursue the case. Even in cases where the papers have been taken away by the client, it is the duty of the advocate to appear on the date of hearing till such time he withdraws his power or it is cancelled according to rules by the client. The impugned order does not, suffer from any illegality, irregularity or want of jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8‑6‑1991 passed in C.M. No. 2571/91 in W.P. No.1948/1979). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ (b) Counsel and client‑‑‑ Petitioner in person. Afzal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Dy, Attorney‑General (on Notice).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O.111, R. 4(2) & (5)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑‑ Constitutional petition filed by petitioner‑‑‑Dismissal for non‑prosecution‑‑ Application for restoration of Constitutional petition‑‑‑Dismissal by High Court on ground that although petitioner was absent on the date of hearing, yet he was represented by a senior counsel who should have attended the Court and no valid explanation had been offered for his absence‑‑‑Validity‑‑ High Court had taken note of the fact that cause list was issued and counsel had full notice of the date of hearing, therefore, it was his duty to pursue the case‑‑‑Even in cases where papers had been taken away by the client (as alleged) it was the duty of counsel to appear on the date of hearing till such time he withdrew his power or it was cancelled according to rules by the client‑‑‑Order in question of High Court did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or want of jurisdiction‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. (b) Counsel and client‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Even in cases where papers had been taken away by the client it was the duty of counsel to appear on the date of hearing till such time he withdrew his power or it was cancelled according to the rules by the client‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.111, R. 4(2). Petitioner in person. Afzal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Dy, Attorney‑General (on Notice). Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order passed by the learned Judges of the High Court whereby his application for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non‑prosecution was rejected.
2. The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging his conviction by the Military Court which was confirmed on 18‑10‑1976 imposing life imprisonment for the murder of Ex‑Hav. Zulfiqar Khan. He seems to have served out the sentence. He filed the writ petition in the year 1979. It was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 4‑5‑1991. In the application it was alleged that the petitioner received the summons from the High Court on 11‑5‑1991 whereas the hearing was fixed on 4‑5‑1991 and therefore he could not attend the Court. The learned Judges were of the view that although the petitioner was absent, he was represented by a senior counsel, who should have attend the Court and no valid explanation has been offered for his absence. The petitioner has stated that he had taken away the file from the learned counsel and therefore he did not appear on the date of hearing. The learned Judges have taken note of the fact that cause list was issued and the advocate had full notice of the date of hearing and it was his duty to pursue the case. Even in cases where the papers have been taken away by the client, it is the duty of the advocate to appear on the date of hearing till such time he withdraws his power or it is cancelled according to rules by the client. The impugned order does not, suffer from any illegality, irregularity or want of jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑1976/S Leave refused.