Mst. ROBINA SHAFIQ vs THE STATE And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner, Mst. Robina Shafiq, through her Advocate-on-Record, stated that he had no instructions to proceed with the case. Consequently, the counsel did not press the petition. Accepting this submission, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed. The holding affirms that when a petitioner's counsel reports no instructions and declines to press the matter, the court will dismiss the petition accordingly. The key principle established is the dismissal of a legal proceeding for non-prosecution when the moving party chooses not to press its claim.
- What is the consequence when a petitioner's counsel states they have no instructions and do not press the petition?
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN ACTG. C.J.--The learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner states that he had no instructions. Therefore he does not press the petition which is dismissed as not pressed.