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.
C.M.P.No.422‑R of 1984 in Civil Appeal No.220 of 1977, decided on 17th November, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 24‑5‑1977 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 524 of 1977).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Appeal before Supreme Court‑‑Appellant on demise of their Advocate‑on‑Record did not engage any other Advocate‑on‑Record to represent their appeal but filed an application stating that "parties have amicably compromised outside Court and there was nothing left for adjudication by Supreme Court" and prayed that they may be permitted to withdraw appeal‑‑Supreme Court by way of abundant caution issued notice to appellant for verification of signatures on said application but appellant meanwhile engaged another Advocate‑on‑Record who filed application seeking to withdraw earlier application on ground that respondents had resiled from compromise‑‑Held. appellants having taken definite step, second attempt of appellant was one to prolong litigation which practice was highly deprecated‑‑Application was, therefore, rejected and' appeal dismissed as withdrawn.‑‑[Compromise].
Ch. Muhammad Siddiq, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and M. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th November, 1984.
On the demise of Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record, the appellants did not engage any Advocate‑on- Record to represent them in the appeal, but filed an application stating "that the parties have amicably compromised outside the Court and there is nothing left for adjudication by this Court". and prayed ,that they may be permitted to withdraw the appeal.
By way of abundant caution we issued notice to them fog verification of the signatures on the application, but to our surprise today we noticed that they had engaged another Advocate‑on‑Record, who filed an application seeking to withdraw the earlier application on the ground that the respondents have resiled from the compromise.
After having taken the definite step, we regard the second attempt of the appellants as one to prolong the litigation which practice we highly deprecate. It goes without saying, that when the first application was filed to withdraw the appeal, the appellants with full responsibility had made the request to withdraw the appeal and that should be given the fullest effect.
Accordingly, while rejecting the application, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, but with no order as to costs.
M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer