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.
Review Petition No. 3‑R of 1984 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 587‑R of 1983, decided on 11th April, 1984.
---O. XIV‑Review‑Petitioner's counsel admitting that nothing can be urged so far as legal requirements for review of an order passed by Supreme Court were concerned ‑ Petition dismissed with certain observations.‑[Review by Supreme Court].
Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 11th April, 1984.
.‑This Review Petition is directed against the order, dated 14‑5‑1983 whereby an application for restoration of a civil appeal which was dismissed for non‑prosecution, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner after some discussion candidly admitted that nothing can be urged in so far as the legal requirements for the review of an order passed by this Court are concerned. He has however after highlighting the facts and circumstances of the case which were the subject‑matter of the civil appeal and its dismissal for no prosecution which he said was unfortunate has pointed out that it was possible for this Court by virtue of its general powers under the rules, to take note of a redeeming feature; notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal for non‑prosecution and the failure of the application for restoration. He has in this behalf read the relevant rules whereunder the action was taken by the respondent Board against the petitioner, and has highlighted amongst others the rules which permit the Board in cases of hardship to reduce the punishment even after the original orders awarding the penalty, have attained finality.
We agree with the learned counsel that in the circumstances of this case notwithstanding the dismissal of petitioner's appeal for non‑prosecution and the failure of his application for restoration, the Board can do so, if it is otherwise competent to reduce the punishment. The orders passed by this Court shall not be treated as a bar to the exercise of such power/ discretion provided of course it exists regarding which the learned counsel feels confident that it does exist. Accordingly if so advised the learned counsel may move the respondent‑Board in this behalf. Learned counsel for the respondent‑caveator has not tried to contest this position and has raised any objection in this behalf.
We accordingly with the foregoing observations dismiss this petition for review.
S.Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer