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

ABDUL RAZZAQ versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, COLONIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE


Consultation with the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) should be done on time and such advice should be presented and therefore should not be called upon to be postponed without showing good cause.

1981 S C M R 216

Present : Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J

ABDUL RAZZAQ-Appellant

versus

MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, COLONIES, PUNJAB,

LAHORE AND OTHERS-Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1977, decided on 23rd November, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 4-I1-1976 in Writ Petition No. 1476 of 1978).

Supreme Court Rules, 1956-

-- Read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Adjourn ment-Telegram sent by Advocate-on-Record praying for adjourn ment of case on ground that newly appointed Advocate could not appear-Such ground, held, not sufficient reason for granting adjourn ment and Advocate-on-Record should have engaged counsel in time and such counsel should have put in appearance and not prayed for adjournment without showing sufficient cause for same.-[Adjourn ment].

Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.

Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate and S. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Advocate-General I (Punjab) for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Respondent No. 4 in person.

Date of hearing : 23rd November, 1980.

ORDER

ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-

-When this appeal came up for hearing before us today, a telegram sent boy the learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, namely, Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, was placed before us, praying in for adjournment on the ground that the newly engaged counsel could not appear today. We consider that this is not at all a sufficient reason for granting adjournment, as thee learned Advocate-on-Record should have engaged the counsel in time, and the latter should have put an appearance today, and not prayed for an adjournment without showing sufficient cause for the same. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution, with no orders as to costs.

The interim order issued by this Court on the 18th of December, 1977, as to the maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the appeal is hereby recalled.

Appeal 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
property advocates from Tando Jam 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.