| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2443 2016 SLD 2443 2016 SCMR 1961 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petition No. 142 of 2015 in Constitutional Petition No. 104 of 2011, decided on 24th August, 2016. Date of hearing: 18th July, 2016. (For review of judgment Dated 08.01.2015 passed by this Court, in Constitution Petition No. 104 of 2011 etc.)
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, CHIEF, JUSTICE, GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JUSTICE
A.K. Dogar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Review Petition No. 142 of 2015 in Constitutional Petition No. 104 of 2011, decided on 24th August, 2016. Date of hearing: 18th July, 2016. (For review of judgment Dated 08.01.2015 passed by this Court, in Constitution Petition No. 104 of 2011 etc.)
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, CHIEF, JUSTICE, GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE AND TARIQ PARVEZ, JUSTICE
A.K. Dogar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.
ENGINEERS STUDY FORUM (REGISTERED) AND another
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Administration of justice--- ----Audi alteram partem, principle of---Scope---While hearing a case before it, the Court had to keep into consideration the well enshrined and celebrated principle of Audi alteram partem i.e. no man should be condemned unheard---However the Court was not bound to give indefinite hearing to the counsel appearing for a party before it nor the counsel could claim privilege of hearing him by the Court to his heartfelt satisfaction---Court had to regulate hearing of the matters fixed before it and at the same time to ensure that it had given adequate time to the counsel for hearing in a given case---Question as to what was the adequate time for hearing of a given case, it was not for the counsel appearing for a party before the Court to decide rather it was more a function of the Court---Counsel for a party would not be allowed to be heard infinitum or to his heartfelt satisfaction. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, R. 1---Review by the Supreme Court---Grounds---Supreme Court had the power to review its own where errors in the /order under review were self-evident and floating on the surface of record and had material bearing on the final result of the case. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, R. 1---Review by the Supreme Court---Scope---Review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court did not allow re-hearing of a decided case by the Supreme Court more so when the Supreme Court had given conscious and deliberate decision on the point of law as well as of fact while disposing of the under review---Similarly, the grounds not urged or raised at the time of hearing of the under review could not be allowed to be raised in the review proceeding. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE:----------------- By this Civil Review Petition, the petitioners namely Engineers Study Forum (Regd.) and another have sought review of the judgment dated 08.01.2015 passed in C.Ps. Nos.32/1996, 45/1998, 37/2000, 44/2002, 39/2005, 104/2011, Civil Petition No.887/2008 and…
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