SANAULLAH AND Others vs KAMAL DIN
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously dismissed a petition for leave to appeal as 'not pressed' following a statement made by the petitioners' counsel. The petitioners sought review on the grounds that their counsel had withdrawn the petition without their consent despite having been paid full fees, and that the original petition involved significant legal questions warranting admission. The Supreme Court examined whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review. The Court held that the dismissal order was based on the explicit statement made by the petitioners' counsel during the hearing. Consequently, the Court determined that any potential error lay solely in the statement made by the counsel, not in the judicial order itself. The Court affirmed that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, as the order correctly reflected the proceedings at the time, and therefore dismissed the review petition.
- Can a party seek review of an order dismissing a petition as 'not pressed' on the grounds that their counsel acted without consent?
- Does a statement made by counsel in open court binding the client constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for review purposes?
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioner had filed a petition for leave against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8th February, 1974, which came up for hearing before this Court on 18th February, 1978.
2. As the learned counsel for the petitioner stated "that he does not wish to press the petition", the Court dismissed it with the observation : "accordingly it is dismissed as not pressed."
3. The petitioners now seek a review of this order on .The ground that their learned counsel, Mr. Awan Mohammad Hanif Khan had been paid full fees and had withdrawn the petition without the petitioners' consent, and further that the petitioners raised an important question of law, and, therefore, merited admission. But, even if it is assumed that the petition for leave merited admission, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, because of the statement made by the.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the error, if any, is in the statement made by the petitioners' learned counsel and there is no error much less any error apparent in the order dismissing the petition for leave as withdrawn.