Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

GHULAM RASUL ETC versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,GUJRANWALA


The requirements of r5 were not observed in the filing and processing of the XXVL r 5 petitions, on the basis of which there was an exception to compliance with the rule that the applicant was very malicious and from paying Advocate Court fees. Unable to, Advocate Disability is likely to be very handicapped with the assistance of assistance and in this case the possibility of generating serious and frequent revision requests from an effective point of view.

1980 S C M R 962

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur‑Rehman, JJ

GHULAM RASUL ETC.‑Petitioners

Versus

SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,

GUJRANWALA BTC‑Respondents

Revision Petition No. 23/R of 1980, decided on 1st April 1980.

(On review from the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 9th February 1980 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 938 of 1974).

Supreme Court Rules, 1936

----O. XXVL r. 5‑Review ‑ Requirements of r. 5 not observed in drawing up petition and in prosecuting it‑Application seeking exemp tion from compliance with rule on ground that petitioner was very poor and unable to pay fee of Advocate‑Court likely to be greatly handicapped for want of Advocate's assistance and a lenient view in matter likely to give rise to frivolous and repetitious review petitions -Permission sought for not allowed‑‑[Review by Supreme Court].

Ch. Muhammad Ashruf Azeem, Advocate with Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents

Date of hearing: 1st April 1980.

ORDER

SHAFI‑UR-REHMAN J -

The petitioners seek review of our order dated 9‑2‑1980. whereby leave to appeal sought for by the petitioner was refused. 2. In drawing up the review petition and in prosecuting it requirement of rule 5, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules have not been observed. Instead an application has been filed seeking exemption from compliance with this rule. The only ground given in it is that the petitioners are very poor and they are unable to pay the amount of fee demanded by the learned Advocate who appeared at the hearing before us.

3. The rule of which exemption is sought makes a salutary provision for the preparation, presentation and prosecution of a review petition by the same counsel who argued the main petition or appeal. Unless circumstances be compelling or the absence unavoidable compliance with this rule has to take place. In the absence of the Advocate who earlier appeared in the proceedings before us, we are likely to be greatly handicapped in getting proper assistance and a lenient view in the matter is likely to give rise to frivolous '''and repetitious review petitions. The permission sought for is not allowed and the petition being not in accordance with rules applicable is rejected.

Petition rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
criminal advocate from Haveli Lakha lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.