Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Original Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4094 of 1986 in Suit No.282 of 1973, decided on 28th October, 1986.
---S. 151--Sind Chief Court Rules, R. 100- - of High Court to modify discretionary order passed by Supreme Court--High Court not empowered to modify discretionary order passed by Supreme Court- Procedural law under R. 100 of Sind Chief Court Rules was applicable only to orders passed by High Court--Application seeking extension of time allowed to applicant by Supreme Court for furnishing security within specified time which he failed to comply with, held, misconceived and liable to be dismissed by High Court.
Mansoorul Arfin for Plaintiff.
Abdul Aziz for Respondents.
This is a totally misconceived application and the learned counsel for the applicant has taken 20 minutes and insists that I have power to modify the order of the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 22-5-1986, whereby the defendant /applicant was ordered to furnish security within specified time and which he has failed to do.
Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff raised a preliminary objection in the beginning that the relief sought in this application cannot be granted by me, because in substance the applicant wants extension of time which was allowed to him by the Supreme Court for furnishing security or in the event of default for condonation of delay,
Mr. Abdul Aziz, learned counsel appearing for the defendant, however, feels, that I must issue instruction to the Nazir to stay his hands till a copy of the order of the Supreme Court is received by the Nazir and also try the counsel for the defendant. It is allowed that the order has not yet been received rather it has not has been signed. Whatever may be the position, neither I have benefit of the order which is sought to be modified now, nor I have power to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Supreme Court.
This application is totally misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
Learned counsel in support of his arguments read rule 100 of Sind Chief Court Rules. This is a procedural rule and could be invoked if the order was passed by this Court. This does not authorise me to interfere with the orders of the Supreme Court, dated 22-5-1986.
H.B.T./T-3/K Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer