GHULAM RASUL ETC Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,GUJRANWALA

ORDER

SHAFI‑UR-REHMAN J - The petitioners seek review of our order dated 9‑2‑1980. whereby leave to appeal sought for by the petitioner was refused.

2. In drawing up the review petition and in prosecuting it requirement of rule 5, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules have not been observed. Instead an application has been filed seeking exemption from compliance with this rule. The only ground given in it is that the petitioners are very poor and they are unable to pay the amount of fee demanded by the learned Advocate who appeared at the hearing before us.

3. The rule of which exemption is sought makes a salutary provision for the preparation, presentation and prosecution of a review petition by the same counsel who argued the main petition or appeal. Unless circumstances be compelling or the absence unavoidable compliance with this rule has to take place. In the absence of the Advocate who earlier appeared in the proceedings before us, we are likely to be greatly handicapped in getting proper assistance and a lenient view in the matter is likely to give rise to frivolous '''and repetitious review petitions. The permission sought for is not allowed and the petition being not in accordance with rules applicable is rejected.

Petition rejected.