Find a Lawyer

SHAHZADA ASLAM versus CH. MUHAMMAD AKRAM

XX0 XXVI, R - Review of Supreme Court Decision of Bench - Scope Rule 8 of Q XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 stole "as far as practicable review application posted before the same bench" Attempts to review the judgment or order - aid Syed Roll meant that the same bench that delivered the verdict needed to hear the case, but the bench's competence and practice were conditional - a request submitted to the chief justice. Or at least before a bench in which the author was a judge, [Page 145] C&D

PLD 2017 Supreme Court 142

Present: Amir Hani Muslim, Mushir Alam and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ

SHAHZADA ASLAM and others—Applicants

versus

Ch. MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others—Respondents

C.M.As. Nos. 204 and 233 of 2017 in C.R.P. No.474 of 2016, decided on 20th January, 2017.

(Review arising out of the judgment dated 26-9-2016 passed by this Court in Constitutional Petition No.3 of 2014).

(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1980—

—0. XI—Constitution of Benches—Request by litigant/lawyer for constitution of a larger Bench—Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, powers of—-Scope—Constitution of larger Bench was covered by

0.X1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 which dearly provided that the constitution of Benches was the domain of the Chief Justice and no litigant or lawyer could he permitted to ask that his case be heard by a Bench of his choice, [pp. 144, 245] A & B (In re: M.A. No 657 of 1996 in Reference No.l and 2 of 1996 (PLD 1997 SC SO) ref.

(b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980—

—0. XXVI, R. 8—Review of Supreme Court judgment—Constitution of Bench—Scope—Rule 8 of Q.XXVI of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 staled that “as far as practicable the application for review shall be posted before the same Bench that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed"—Said Rule meant that the same Bench that delivered the judgment needed to hear the matter, but subject to the amiability and practicability of the Bench—Review petition needed to be assigned by the Chief justice or the office at least before a Bench of which the author Judge was a Member, [p. 145] C & D

Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif PLD 2009 SC 391 and Government of Punjab v. Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq PLD 2016 SC 421 ref.

Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Applicants.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th January, 2017.

female advocates from Nankana Sahib lawyer