Pakistan Case LawPakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, through its authorized person and others. Versus Election Commission of Pakistan, through Special Secretary, Islamabad and others
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the short order and detailed reasons of the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued in January 2024. The primary legal question addressed by the Court was whether a request for adjournment based on a counsel's personal family engagement, submitted by an Advocate-on-Record, constitutes sufficient grounds for delaying proceedings, particularly when multiple other counsel are available to represent the petitioners. The Court held that the mere filing of an adjournment application does not automatically entitle a party to a postponement. Emphasizing the availability of other counsel and the legislative change introduced by Section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, which now permits the engagement of different counsel in review petitions, the Court declined the request for adjournment. However, as an indulgence in the interest of justice, the Court granted a final adjournment, explicitly warning that no further requests would be entertained and mandating that the case proceed on the next scheduled date.
- Does the filing of an adjournment application by an Advocate-on-Record automatically entitle a party to a postponement of proceedings?
- Does Section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 allow for the engagement of different counsel in a review petition?
- Can a court deny an adjournment request when multiple other counsel are available to represent the petitioner?
ORDER
Review of the short order of this Court, announced on 13 January 2024, and of its detailed reasons, which were issued on 25 January 2024 is sought through this review petition.
2.An 'Application for Adjournment' has been submitted by Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record on the ground that, 'Mr. Hamid Khan, Senior ASC, has pressing family engagement at Lahore on 11.10.2024'. The nature of the pressing family engagement is not disclosed. The learned AOR is also not in attendance. Learned counsel must know that merely filing an adjournment application does not mean that the case will be adjourned.
3.The petitioners were represented by Advocates of the Supreme Court ('ASCs') a couple of whom themselves are ASCs, respectively, Senior Advocate Mr. Hamid Khan, and ASCs Messrs Syed Ali Zafar, Gohar Ali Khan, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Niazullah Khan Niazi. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua was the Advocate-on-Record earlier and in the review petition it is Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad. Therefore, if Senior Advocate Mr. Hamid Khan, as stated, had some pressing family engagement any of the other learned ASCs could have attended and proceeded with the case. Moreover, section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 now enables engagement of other counsel in a review petition, which was not permissible earlier.
4.In the circumstances, we are not persuaded to adjourn the case, however, in the interest of justice and only by way of indulgence we do so but make it clear that no further request for adjournment will be entertained, and we expect that the case to proceed on the next date.
5.In view of the fact that two Members of this Bench will not be available at Islamabad next week, we adjourn this case to Monday, 21 October 2024. Copy of this order be sent to the learned ASCs, learned AORs and to the review petitioners.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Ali Mazhar1,594 judgments
- Musarrat Hilali351 judgments
- Qazi Faez Isa (C.J)94 judgments