Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petitions Nos. 35‑R & 46‑R of 1975, decided on 14th July, 1980.

‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O.XXVI, r.5‑‑Review‑‑Petition filed by Advocate‑on‑Record and not by counsel who appeared and argued case at time of passing judgment sought to be reviewed‑‑Held, not maintainable. ‑‑[Review by Supreme Court].

Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioners.

M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th July, 1980.

These two petitions seek a review of the judgment of this Court dated the 12th of September, 1975, whereby civil appeals bearing Nos. 13 and 14 of 1951, were dismissed.

At the time of the hearing of the appeals Mr. M. Arif Advocate had argued the matter for the appellants, who are now petitioners before us. The present review petitions have not been drawn up by Mr.Arif, nor is he present at today's hearing. The certificate of fitness by a Senior Advocate is also not drawn up or signed by Mr.Arif. In these circumstances, the question arises whether these review petitions are at all maintainable in view of the provisions contained in rule 5 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, which enjoins that: "Except with the special leave of the Court, no application for review shall be drawn by any Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review."

The only explanation offered for the absence of Mr.Arif at today's hearing is that he had in fact, refused to file these review petitions, presumably for the reason that he did not regard these cases as being fit for review. It was submitted by Mr.Ejaz Ahmad Khan that as he was the Advocate‑on‑Record even in the appeals out of which the present review petitions have arisen, therefore, the requirements of the aforesaid rule 5 should be deemed to have been fulfilled. This submission is, however misconceived, as rule 5 does not deal with the presence of the Advocate‑on‑Record, but of the Advocate, who appeared at the hearing of the case, in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed was made, meaning thereby that it should be the counsel, who, in fact, argued the matter. There is considerable wisdom behind this rule, as the counsel, who appeared and argued the matter in the first instance, is in the best position to make out a case for review, specially, when it is remembered that ordinarily finality attaches to the pronouncements of the highest Court in the land. There are definite limitations on the power of review, and it is, accordingly, necessary that not only should those limitations be observed, but that all the formalities required by law should be observed before a petition for review can be entertained and heard.

Now, in the present case, the learned counsel who had so painstakingly argued the matter five years ago, at the time of the hearing of the appeals, has not thought it fit to file these. review petitions. Nor is he present at today's hearing. The requirements of rule 5 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules not having thus been complied with, we would dismiss both the review petitions as being not maintainable.

S.Q.

Petitions 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.