HAMEED-UR-REHMAN through L.Rs, and others vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
These review petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the petitioners, where the learned Advocate Supreme Court who drew and signed the review petitions failed to appear to prosecute them, and the Advocate-on-Record expressed inability to assist the Court. The primary issues concerned the professional duties of counsel towards the Court upon drawing and signing a petition, and whether any valid ground for review was established. The Supreme Court disapproved of the conduct of the counsel, holding that having drawn and signed a petition, an Advocate Supreme Court incurs an obligation to appear and assist the Court. Although the petitions could ordinarily have been dismissed on the sole ground of non-prosecution and counsel's default, the Court heard the petitioners in person to prevent injustice. Upon examining the entire matter, the Court held that no ground for review was made out and consequently dismissed the review petitions.
- Does an Advocate Supreme Court incur a legal obligation to appear and assist the Supreme Court after drawing and signing a petition?
- Can a review petition be dismissed on the sole ground that the counsel who drew and signed it failed or refused to appear to prosecute it?
- Whether the Supreme Court may hear petitioners in person to ensure justice when their counsel fails to appear and prosecute a review petition?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- The learned Advocate Supreme Court who had appeared in C.Ps. Nos.2747-L and 2748-L of 2002 has not entered appearance to prosecute these review petitions and we have been informed that he is not willing to do so despite having drawn and signed the said review petitions.
2. We have not been able to appreciate such a conduct of the learned Advocate Supreme Court.
Having drawn and signed a petition, the learned Advocate Supreme Court incurs an obligation to appear and assist this Court in the matter in question. We are surprised that the learned Advocate Supreme Court has not cared to discharge his said obligation. The position of the learned Advocate-on-Record is no better who says that he knows nothing about this matter and is therefor, not in a position to assist the Court.
3. We would have ordinarily dismissed these review petitions on this short ground alone but in the interest of justice, we have heard Mst. Fahmida Begum and her son Riaz-ur-Rehman petitioners at some length to ensure that the order sought to be reviewed had not operated unjustly on the petitioners. Having once again examined the entire matter, we find that no ground for review is made out and these petitions are, therefore dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.