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

SANAULLAH versus KAMAL DIN


Article 188 read with the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, that the application for leave of appeal and the dismissal by the counsel of the applicant after hearing the request for AXXVI revision was rejected because the application The petition has been withdrawn without the consent of the petitioner and an important question of law has been raised. Review the merit admission, review the application even if the admission is to be merit, the application for leave is excluded in case of dismissal; error, if any, statement given by the applicant's counsel. There will be no error in the order of dismissal of the petition, for any lesser error [review by Supreme Court]

1981 SCMR 781

Present : Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ

SANAULLAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners

versus

KAMAL DIN-Respondent

Civil Review Petition No. 11-R of 1978 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 617 of 1978, decided on 26th March, 1980.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--

-- Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI -Review-Petition for leave to appeal withdrawn by petitioner's counsel and petition dismissed accordingly - Contention as to petition having been withdrawn without petitioner's consent and raised an important question of law hence petition for review merited admission-Held, review petition even if supposed to merit admission, petition for leave having been dismissed as withdrawn, error, if arty, lay in statement made by petitioner's counsel and no error, much less any error apparent in order dismissing petition for leave.-[Review by Supreme Court].

Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate with S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent . "

Date of hearing : 26th Match, 1980.

ORDER

DORAB PATEL, J.

-The petitioner had filed a petition for leave against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8th February, 1974, which came up for hearing before this Court on 18th February, 1978. As the learned counsel for the petitioner stated "that he does not wish to press the petition", the Court dismissed it with the observation : "accordingly it is dismissed as not pressed."

The petitioners now seek a review of this order on .the ground that their learned counsel, Mr. Awan Mohammad Hanif Khan had been paid full fees and had withdrawn the petition without the petitioners' consent, and further that the petitioners raised an important question of law, and, therefore, merited admission. But, even if it is assumed that the petition for leave merited admission, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, because of the statement made by the. learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the error, if any, is in the statement made by the petitioners' learned counsel and there is no error much less any error apparent in the order dismissing the petition for leave as withdrawn.

Petition dismissed.

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
top advocate from South Wazirstan 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.