Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 1817

Haji NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 1817
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Revisions Nos. 86, 116 to 118 of 1982 Petitions for Special Leave to
Date1986-05-09
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultPetitions dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns four petitions for quashment of proceedings that have been pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan for four years. The petitioner's counsel requested an adjournment to obtain fresh instructions from the clients, citing a lack of contact over a significant period. The Court addressed the core question of whether an adjournment should be granted in a long-standing matter where the petitioner has failed to maintain communication with their legal representative. The Court held that no sufficient justification was provided for the delay in seeking instructions. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court established the principle that while petitions may be dismissed for non-prosecution due to a lack of diligence or communication, a mechanism for revival remains available. Specifically, the Court ruled that if the Advocate-on-Record subsequently establishes contact with the clients and determines that the subject matter of the petitions remains live and actionable, they may file an application for the revival of the dismissed petitions. The matter was disposed of accordingly.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel fails to obtain instructions from the client?
  • Is it permissible to revive a petition previously dismissed for non-prosecution if the subject matter remains alive?
quashment of proceedingsnon-prosecutionadjournmentdismissal of petitionrevival of petition

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought adjournment in these four cases of quashment so as to seek fresh instructions because according to him his clients have not contacted him for a long time.

2. It is a four years old matter. No justification has been made out for not seeking the instructions well in time. These petitions accordingly` are dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if after establishing the contact with the clients the learned Advocate-on-Record feels that the subject- matter of these petitions is still alive, he may make an application for revival.

3. With these observations, these petitions are disposed of.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.