| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1845 2023 PLD 22 2023 SLD 1845 |
Supreme Court
C.M.A. No. 3610 of 2022 in C.R.P. No. NIL of 2022 in C.A. No.1256 of 2014 and C.M.A. No. 3611 of 2022 in C.R.P. No. NIL/2022 in C.A. No.1257 of 2014, decided on 24th October, 2022. (Against the judgment of this Court dated 25.02.2022, passed in Civil App
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. N.R. for
Respondents.
C.M.A. No. 3610 of 2022 in C.R.P. No. NIL of 2022 in C.A. No.1256 of 2014 and C.M.A. No. 3611 of 2022 in C.R.P. No. NIL/2022 in C.A. No.1257 of 2014, decided on 24th October, 2022. (Against the judgment of this Court dated 25.02.2022, passed in Civil App
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. N.R. for
Respondents.
AMJAD HUSSAIN---Petitioner
VERSUS
NAZIR AHMAD and others---Respondents
Law:
Section:
Supreme Court Rules, 1980--- ----O. XXVI, Rr. 1, 6 8---Review petition---Change of Advocate in review petition---Special leave of the Court---Principles---Under Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 an application for review has to be drawn by the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the or order, sought to be reviewed, was made---Review argued by a new Advocate before a new Bench would inevitably amount to rehearing of the main case and going beyond the scope of review under the law---Special leave to substitute a counsel in a review petition is to be granted (by the Court), only when appearance of the earlier counsel is not possible due to some unavoidable circumstances. Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (Rules) requires the same Advocate, who earlier appeared to argue the case, to draw up the review application and appeared in support of it before the Court for certain reasons. It is because a review petition is not the equivalent of a petition for leave to appeal or an appeal where the case is argued for the first time. It is not the rehearing of the same matter. The scope of review application is limited to the grounds mentioned in Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Rules. The Advocate who had earlier argued the main case is perhaps the best person to evaluate whether the said grounds of review are attracted in the case. He being part to the hearing of the main case is fully aware of the proceedings that transpired in the Court leading to the or order sought to be reviewed. He is the one who knows what was argued before the Court and what weighed with the Court in deciding the matter either way. It is also for the same reason that the review application is to be fixed before the same Bench that delivered the or order sought to be reviewed, under Rule 8 of Order XXVI of the Rules. It is not hard to see that the same Advocate and the same Bench can best appreciate the grounds of review. A review argued by a new Advocate before a new Bench would inevitably amount to rehearing of the main case and going beyond the scope of review under the law. It is true that the requirement of sufficient ground for granting the special…
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