1971 PLP 171 (SCMR)
Sh. ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ‑Petitioner Versus Miss SURRAYA PARVEEN AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1971 PLP 171 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sh. ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ‑Petitioner Versus Miss SURRAYA PARVEEN AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 171 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 171 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 171 (SCMR) (Sh. ANWAR‑UL‑HAQ‑Petitioner Versus Miss SURRAYA PARVEEN AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 29th October 1970.
- Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI, r. 5‑Review petition- Could competently be filed by Advocate assisting another Advocate and present at time order sought to be reviewed was passed.
- "5. Except with the special leave of the Court, no applica tion for review shall be drawn by any Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review."
- The learned Advocate‑on‑Record has contended that the singular includes plural and, therefore, any Advocate who appeared on behalf of a party at the hearing of the case can draw the review petition and such review petition will be maintainable. The contention is not without force. In our opinion any Advocate who appeared at the hearing can draw the review petitions and file it in Court. Admittedly, Mr. Saeed Akhtar assisted Mr. Mahmood Ali Qasuri and was present at the hearing of the appeal. His appearance, therefore, is sufficient to fulfil the require ments of the above‑mentioned rule. We would, therefore, direct the office to register the review petition and to fix it for hearing according to the rules.
Headnotes / Summary
Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI, r. 5‑Review petition- Could competently be filed by Advocate assisting another Advocate and present at time order sought to be reviewed was passed.
Judgment & Decree
WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑In this matter the question for consideration is whether Mr. Saeed Akhtar who assisted Mr. Mahmood Ali Qasuri and was present at the hearing of the appeal can file the review petition under Order XXVI, rule 5 which reads as under:‑ "
5. Except with the special leave of the Court, no applica tion for review shall be drawn by any Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review." The learned Advocate‑on‑Record has contended that the singular includes plural and, therefore, any Advocate who appeared on behalf of a party at the hearing of the case can draw the review petition and such review petition will be maintainable. The contention is not without force. In our opinion any Advocate who appeared at the hearing can draw the review petitions and file it in Court. Admittedly, Mr. Saeed Akhtar assisted Mr. Mahmood Ali Qasuri and was present at the hearing of the appeal. His appearance, therefore, is sufficient to fulfil the require ments of the above‑mentioned rule. We would, therefore, direct the office to register the review petition and to fix it for hearing according to the rules.