Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review Petition No. 10‑R of 1979, decided on 6th February, 1980.
(On review of the order of the Court dated 15‑2‑1978 in C. P. 336/77).
----O. XXVI‑Review‑‑Rectification of error‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal heard by Bench comprising of Chief Justice and two judges but order dismissing same signed by Chief Justice and one of Judges‑Error ordered to be rectified‑Offer made, before Court and recited in dismissal order, however, to take effect from date of order and not from date on which error rectified.
Qadir Kakhsh, Senior Advocate and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Maqbool Ahmad Malik, Advocate for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th February, 1980.
The petitioner seeks review of the order this Court dated 15th January, 1978, in Civil Petition No. 336 of 1977 by, which it was dismissed.
The ground urged was that the petition was heard by a Bench comprised of the learned Chief Justice, myself and Safdar Shah, J., but the order is signed only by the learned Chief Justice and myself, In support of it he relied on the cause list No. 10 of 1979, in which this petition and the connected Civil Petition 67 of 1977, were listed for hearing before this Bench; and while the order in Civil Petition No. 67 of 1977 was signed by the three Judges, the order in question was not so signed. This commission, according to the learned counsel, is an error on the face of the order, and, therefore, the offer recited in it could not be effective from the date of the dismissal of the petition but from the date on which the error is rectified. So far as the error is concerned, we agree with him, which will be rectified but we do not agree with his further contention as the offer was made in Court before the dismissal of the petition which bad taken effect as from that date.
On the cover of the original file we find that only two Judges were noted to have heard the petition which is an obvious omission resulting from the negligence of the official who recorded the note. He should be called upon to explain as to why he had committed this serious lapse.
The petition is also barred by 318 days but we condoned the delay subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer