| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 848 2023 SLD 848 2023 PLD 273 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.M.A. No. 649-L of 2021 in Civil Review Petition No. Nil of 2021 in C.P.L.A. No. 1719-L of 2020, decided on 27th January, 2023. (Against the order Dated 04.02.2021 passed in C.P.L.A. No. 1719-L of 2020). Date of hearing: 27th January, 2023.
Present: Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Applicants (in C.M.A. No. 649-L of 2021). Syed Qalb-i-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No. 269-L of 2021). Rashid Hafeez, Advoc
C.M.A. No. 649-L of 2021 in Civil Review Petition No. Nil of 2021 in C.P.L.A. No. 1719-L of 2020, decided on 27th January, 2023. (Against the order Dated 04.02.2021 passed in C.P.L.A. No. 1719-L of 2020). Date of hearing: 27th January, 2023.
Present: Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Applicants (in C.M.A. No. 649-L of 2021). Syed Qalb-i-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No. 269-L of 2021). Rashid Hafeez, Advoc
IRFAN AZAM and others-----Applicants
VERSUS
Mst. RABIA RAFIQUE and others-----Respondents
Law:
Section:
Supreme Court Rules, 1980--- ----O. XXVI, R. 6---Review petition before the Supreme Court---Substitution of a counsel at review stage---Scope---In the present case, neither were there any compelling circumstances to change the counsel nor the circumstances were unavoidable, as the previous counsel was also available---In the certificate given by the first/previous counsel the ground taken by him that the party had lost confidence in him and they wanted to change him was hardly a ground to allow the substitution of a counsel at the review stage---If permission was liberally granted, it would not only be against Rule 6 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (the 1980 Rules), but would make the said Rule redundant and would further lead to endless litigation---Application under R. 6 of O. XXVI of the 1980 Rules, was dismissed. Muhammad Younas and others v. The State PLD 2005 SC 93; Amjad Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad and others PLD 2023 SC 22; Ghulam Rasul and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Gujranwala and others 1980 SCMR 962 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others v. N. Raju Reddiar and others AIR 1997 SC 1005 ref. ORDER AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---This is an application on behalf of the petitioners under Rule 6 of Order XXVI read with Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (the Rules) for entertaining the review petition and for permission to file and argue the case. Vide order dated 04.02.2021, after hearing full arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate Supreme Court, Civil Petition No. 1719-L of 2020 was dismissed by this Court. Along with the instant application a review petition No. Nil of 2020 has been filed. The ground for permission is mentioned in Para No. 2 of the application, which is reproduced:- That the present petitioners were represented by Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate Supreme Court in C.P.L.A. No. 1719-L of 2020 before this Honourable Court. Now the petitioners have engaged Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court who will appear and argue the instant Review Petition on behalf of the petitioners before this Honourable Court. Along with this petition at Page 13…
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