Law: High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders

Section: VOIV,Chap.4J,R.2

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199,204

Law: Contempt of Court Act, 1976

Section: 3

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXIII,R.1Q

(a) High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders-- ---VOI- V, Chap. 4-J, R. 2 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1008), O.XXIII, R. 1Q) --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 --- Constitutional petition--­Filing of second petition on same subject-matter --- Where earlier Constitutional petition was withdrawn without seeking permission of the Court to file fresh petition, the second Constitutional petition could not be filed. 1979 CLC 829; PLD 1957 (W.P.) Kar. 848; PLD 1970!SC 1; 1969 SCMR 269; 1,985 CLC 2805; 1996 CLC 2425; PLD 1989 SC 246; PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 287; 1970 SCMR 141; PLD 1990 SC 596; 1991 MLD 571 and, PLD 1992 Lah. 420, rel. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Certainty and finality of the causes enhance the dignity of the Court. (c) Administration of justice- ---- Bar and Bench are two wheels of chariot involved in the dispensation of justice --- Both are supplementary and complimentary to each other - (d) Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)-- ---- S. 3 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 204 --- Contempt of Court--­Filing of second Constitutional petition without permission of the Court and mentioning of wrong number of the earlier petition --- Tender of apology by contemners--7Contempt notices were issued to the counsel and the petitioner both contemners on the ground that earlier Constitutional petition was dismissed as withdrawn and without any permission of the Court to file the fresh petition --- Petitioner through same counsel filed the second petition on the same subject and correct number of the earlier petition was not mentioned --- Effect--­Counsel did not act within the framework of ethics of profession and committed such acts which clearly fell within the ambit of contempt of Court --- Furthermore, the petitioner was the beneficiary and active participator of such acts --- Both the counsel and the petitioner were found guilty of contempt of Court --- Taking into consideration the rule of healthy relationship between the Bench and the Bar as well as the standing of the counsel in profession, lesser penalty of reprimand was awarded --- Following the rule of consistency, the petitioner too was reprimanded --- Suo motu contempt…

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