| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 3443 2007 SLD 3443 2007 PLJ 1054 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.R.P. No. 46 of 2007, in C.A. No. 241 of 2005, decided on 4.4.2007
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD & RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JJ
Mr. S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi, ASC with Petitioners in person. Nemo for
Respondents
C.R.P. No. 46 of 2007, in C.A. No. 241 of 2005, decided on 4.4.2007
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD & RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JJ
Mr. S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi, ASC with Petitioners in person. Nemo for
Respondents
Br. JEHANZAIB RAHIM
VS
Dr. SHAUKAT PERVEZ and others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
Condonation of delay-- ----Principle--Delay of each day must be satisfactorily explained and the ground on the basis of which condonation is sought must be recognized in law a valid ground and sufficient cause for condonation of delay. [P. 1057] C Review-- ----Principle--Case cannot be reopened on merits in review and the rules do not permit the review petitioner to himself address the Court if he was being represented by the counsel. [P. 1057] E Supreme Court Rules, 1980-- ----O. XXVI, R. 8--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 188--Review petition--Dismissed--Time barred--No sufficient or valid cause for condonation of delay of 51 days--Review petition had been filed with delay of 51 days and the condonation had been sought on the ground that petitioner having hope of justice from the Bench of the Supreme Court which had decided the main appeal did not earlier file the review petition for the reason that under Order XXVI Rule 8 of Supreme Court Rules, the review petition was to be placed before the same Bench which finally decided the case or at least one of the judges of the said Bench--Validity--Author judge ceased to function but second member of the Bench was functioning and was also available to be--If the petitioner was not satisfied with the statement made by his counsel before the Court or had any reservation against any member of the Bench, he after filing the review petition within the prescribed time provided in the rules, could conveniently raise objection to the independence of the Bench for the purpose of hearing the review--Petitioner did not apply for the certified copy of the within the limitation for filing the review petition rather he applied for copy after the expiry of limitation to file the review, which was prepared and petitioner having collected the same and filed the review petition with a delay of 51 days--Held: Petitioner having not applied for the copy of the within the limitation for filing the review petition had not been able to explain the delay and further reason advanced by him for not making an application for a copy of the to file the review petition within limitation, was not rooted in any disability--Review petition was…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492