1988 SCMR 38

MANZOORULLAH Versus INAYAT ALI

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1988 SCMR 38

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.57-R/1987

Date1987-08-03

Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan

Authored byShafiur Rahman

ResultOrder accordingly

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter involves a petition seeking review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court dated 10-12-1986. The core legal question addressed is whether a review petition can be formally entertained without fulfilling the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the certificate required under the relevant Supreme Court Rules. The Court held that the petition cannot be formally entertained unless the requirements of the rules are fully satisfied. Additionally, the Court noted that related petitions arising from the same Service Tribunal judgment should be heard by an equally large Bench to ensure consistent consideration of the relief to be granted. The key principle laid down is that procedural prerequisites, such as filing the requisite certificates under the rules, are mandatory for the formal entertainment of review petitions.

Questions settled in this judgment

Can a review petition be formally entertained without the certificate required under the Supreme Court Rules?
Should related petitions arising from the same judgment be heard by an equally large Bench?

Laws & provisions referred

Order XXVI Rule 4, Supreme Court Rules

review petitionSupreme Court Rulesprocedural complianceservice tribunalleave to appeal

ORDER

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.- -The petitioner seeks review of our judgment dated 10-12-1986.

2. We find that the certificate required under Order XXVI, Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, is not on record. The requirement of rule 6 has also not been fully satisfied as the Advocate who appeared at the hearing, has only undertaken to be present at the hearing. Unless the requirements of the rules are satisfied, the petition cannot be formally entertained. The petitioner undertakes to do so.

3. Two other petitions for leave to appeal (C.P.260 and 261 of 1980) arising out of the same judgment of the Service Tribunal as was dealt with by the judgment of this Court dated 10-12-1986 have yet to be disposed of. It is only proper that it should come up before an equally large Bench because in examining the relief to be granted to these petitioners, that judgment is also to come up under consideration.

S.Q./M-214/S Order accordingly.