ALLAH BAKHSH KHAN and otherss vs AHMAD KHAN through L.Rs,
This matter arises from a review petition filed by the petitioners through a new counsel, seeking to challenge a previous order disposing of a civil petition on the basis of a compromise. The petitioners alleged they never authorized their former advocate to enter into any such compromise. The core legal question involves the interpretation and enforcement of the procedural requirements governing review petitions and representation under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, specifically regarding whether a new advocate may appear without special leave or if review applications must be drawn by the advocate who appeared at the original hearing. The Supreme Court held that the review petition and associated applications must be dismissed because the requirements of Rule 6 of Order XXVI and Rules 4 and 15 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 were violated, and declined to grant special leave for the new counsel to appear and level allegations against the previous advocate behind his back. The Court laid down the principle that procedural rules regarding counsel representation and the restriction on changing advocates for review without special leave must be strictly adhered to.
- Can a review application be entertained when drawn by an advocate who did not appear at the hearing of the original case without special leave of the Court?
- Whether an advocate other than an Advocate-on-Record is entitled to act for a party in proceedings before the Supreme Court?
- What are the consequences under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for violating rules regarding counsel representation and review applications?
- Rule 6 of Order XXVI, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Rule 4 of Order IV, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Rule 15 of Order IV, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
' Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court has appeared on behalf of the petitioners, whereas at the petition stage, Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court had appeared on their behalf. Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court referred to C.M.A. No,1041-L of 1999 and submitted that the petitioners who were respondents in Civil Petition No,267-L of 1999 never authorised Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, their Advocate to enter into compromise with the other party on the basis whereof petition was disposed of, as such, they have lost confidence in him.
2. Under Rule 6 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 no application for review could be entertained unless it is drawn by the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed is made except with the special leave of the Court nor shall any other Advocate be heard in support of such application for review unless the Court has dispensed with the aforesaid requirement. Under Rule 6 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 no Advocate other than an Advocate-on-Record shall appear or plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advocate-on-Record and under Rule 15 of Order IV of the Rules (ibid) no Advocate other than Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to act for a party in any proceedings in the Court. In this case both the Rules 6 and 15 of Order IV of the Rules were violated by the Advocate-on-Record whereas under Rule 6 of Order XXVI of the Rules, Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court could not appear except with the special leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners be issued a show-cause notice under Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as to why his licence should not be suspended for violating the aforesaid Rules and not producing the counsel who appeared at the petition stage.
4. In view of the above, we are not inclined to give permission to Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court to appear for the petitioners as the allegations leveled against the previous Advocate at his back are such which may have far-reaching effects on his career, therefore, this review petition along with the listed application is dismissed.
Review dismissed.