2002 PLP 526 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 526 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, C. J., Ch. Muhammad Arif and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Adjournment‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 526 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Adjournment‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 526 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, C. J., Ch. Muhammad Arif and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 526 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N .A. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing 16th November, 2001.
- Mr. Taki Ahmed khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has moved an application for adjournment on the ground mentioned in paragraph No.2 thereof, which reads thus:
- 3. We have, however, gone through the judgment under review as well as the petition for review with the assistance of Mr. N.A. Butt, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No. l and find no ground for review. Dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review of the judgment dated 25‑1‑2000, passed by this Court). ‑‑‑‑ Counsel seeking adjournment on the ground of his personal engagement‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Personal engagement of a counsel could not be given preference to his professional duties towards the Court. Petitioner No.2 in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ Counsel seeking adjournment on the ground of his personal engagement‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Personal engagement of a counsel could not be given preference to his professional duties towards the Court. Petitioner No.2 in person. N .A. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing 16th November, 2001. Mr. Taki Ahmed khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has moved an application for adjournment on the ground mentioned in paragraph No.2 thereof, which reads thus: "
2. That it happened I have a personal engagement at Lahore and unable to attend this Hon'ble Court on the abovementioned date. I regret any inconvenience to this august Court."
2. We are afraid, personal engagements of a counsel cannot be given preference to his professional duties towards the Court. Resultantly, the application for adjournment is declined.
3. We have, however, gone through the judgment under review as well as the petition for review with the assistance of Mr. N.A. Butt, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No. l and find no ground for review. Dismissed. S.K.A./M.A.K./M‑323/S Petition dismissed.