BARKAT ALI Versus STATE
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously dismissed a criminal petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether a review petition could be entertained when it failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the Supreme Court Rules regarding the advocate who drafts and presents such applications. The Court observed that the review petition was drawn by an advocate other than the one who had conducted the original leave petition, and the original advocate was not present at the hearing, both of which violated the established rules. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was procedurally defective and liable to be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a review petition must strictly adhere to the procedural mandates of the Supreme Court Rules, specifically the requirement that the application be drawn by the same advocate who appeared at the hearing of the original case and that said advocate must be present at the review hearing unless otherwise dispensed with.
- Can a review petition be filed by an advocate other than the one who conducted the original case without special leave of the Court?
- Is the presence of the original advocate required at the hearing of a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules?
- What is the consequence of filing a review petition in violation of the procedural rules regarding advocate representation?
- Order XXVI Rule 5, Supreme Court Rules 1956
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J .-This is a review .petition against the order of this Court in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to appeal No. 262 of 1971, dated the 4th April, 1972. The petition was dismissed.
2. It appears from the record that Mr. K. H. Khurshid argued the above petition and under the rules except with the special leave of the Court, no' application can be drawn by any Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed was made. It is also provided that such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with, be present at the hearing of the application for review. In this connection re ference may be made to Order XXVI, rule 5 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules.
3. In the present case, it is admitted by Mr. Saved Hassan that the Petition was drawn by him. It was not drawn by Mr. K. H.) Khurshid who conduced the leave petition. Mr. K. H. Khurshid is also not present today., :In these circumstances, the review petition is against the rules and is liable to be dismissed. We would, therefore, dismiss the review petition Review Petition dismissed.