| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 1244 2009 SLD 1244 2009 PLD 644 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petitions Nos. 45 to 48, 50 to 52, 59 to 62 of 2009 in C.Ps. Nos. 778, 779, 878, CA No.166 of 2009 & C.P. 803, C.M.A. Nos.63, .64 of 2008 in CMA No.1674-75 of 2008 in C.P. No. NIL of 2008, Crl. R. P. No.22 of 2009 in Crl.O.P. 41 of 2008 and C
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, NASIR-UL-MULK, MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, SHEIKH HAKIM, ALI AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Review Petitions Nos. 45 to 48, 50 to 52, 59 to 62 of 2009 in C.Ps. Nos. 778, 779, 878, CA No.166 of 2009 & C.P. 803, C.M.A. Nos.63, .64 of 2008 in CMA No.1674-75 of 2008 in C.P. No. NIL of 2008, Crl. R. P. No.22 of 2009 in Crl.O.P. 41 of 2008 and C
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, NASIR-UL-MULK, MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, SHEIKH HAKIM, ALI AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
VS
Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------Ss. 14(5)(5A), (6), 11 & 99---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.184(3), 199, 225, 63(h)(1) & 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.8---Review of Supreme Court ---Qualifications and disqualifications of candidates for election---Judgments under review i.e. of the High Court and of Supreme Court were ex parte on account of which certain factual aspects and legal provisions having bearing on the issues raised, were not brought to the notice of the court and therefore, were not considered leading to miscarriage of justice---Such omission was an error apparent on the face of record warranting review---Realizing the exceptional and extraordinary events relating to unconstitutional removal of Judges of the Superior Courts which, in the under review, had been described as, "enforced by a brutal force, by deviating from constitutional provisions," triggering an unprecedented nationwide movement, culminating in the restoration of those Judges, and during the interregnum, non-appearance of petitioners before the courts then constituted, could neither be termed as contumacious nor reflecting acquiescence, the findings of fact rendered on such assumptions merited to be interfered with in the review jurisdiction---Both the appeals filed under section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the information laid or directed against the acceptance of nomination papers (under section 14(5A) of the said Act) were mandated to be decided by or before the period fixed for deciding the appeals in the schedule issued by the Chief Election Commissioner under section 11 read with section 14(5) of the said Act; since the appeals were not decided by then, the order of the Chief Election Commissioner holding that the appeal stood dismissed was in accord with section 14(6) of the Act which stipulated that, "an appeal not disposed of within the period specified in subsection (5) shall be deemed to have been dismissed"; finding that information laid under section 14(5A) of the said Act could remain pending and decided beyond the said date fixed for disposal of appeals was not in consonance with theβ¦
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