GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a criminal petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question is whether a counsel who did not argue the original petition can be permitted to argue the review petition in the absence of the original counsel and without sufficient lawful justification. The Supreme Court held that allowing another counsel to argue under such circumstances violates the established practice of the Court and contravenes the provisions governing appearances in review petitions. The key principle laid down is that an advocate who did not argue the principal matter cannot appear as of right in a review petition without the permission of the Court, which requires exceptional circumstances that were lacking in this case.
- Can an advocate who did not argue the original criminal petition be allowed to argue the review petition without sufficient lawful justification?
- Is the permission of the Court required for an advocate to appear in a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
- Order XXVI Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑ ‑The criminal petition for leave to appeal was argued by Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned Advocate Supreme Court which was dismissed vide judgment impugned, review whereof has been sought by way of this review petition.
2. Mr. M. Rafiq Warriach, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared and submitted that he may be allowed to argue the matter in absence of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned Advocate Supreme Court. It was worth‑mentioning that on the previous date of hearing no such request was made by Mr. M. Rafiq Warriach, learned Advocate Supreme Court who was holding brief for Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned Advocate Supreme Court and matter was adjourned. It is an admitted feature of the case that Mr. M. Rafiq Warriach had not argued the criminal petition for leave to appeal and cannot be. allowed to argue the matter on behalf of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned Advocate Supreme Court without sufficient lawful justification which is badly lacking in this case. It is against the practice of this Court to relax the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and therefore, Mr. M. Rafiq Warraich, learned Advocate Supreme Court cannot be allowed to argue the matter as he cannot appear in the review petition as of right which could only be done with the permission of the Court which cannot be granted in absence of exceptional circumstances.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed
N.H.Q./G‑11/S Petition dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Messrs NATIONAL ELECTRIC CO. and others vs KHALID SIDDIQUE and others 2005 PLD Supreme Court 405
- M/s. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CO. etc. vs KHALID SIDDIQUE etc. 2006 PLJ SC 191