LAHORE GYMKHANA and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
This matter involves an application for adjournment before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns the fairness and procedural requirement of informing opposing counsel prior to seeking an advance adjournment. The court decided to adjourn the hearing upon the written request of the petitioner's counsel due to their inability to appear, while noting the respondent counsel's grievance regarding the lack of prior notice. The key principle laid down is that in future practice, every Advocate-on-Record and Advocate of the Supreme Court applying for an advance adjournment of a case must inform opposing counsel well in time to enable them to manage their professional schedule.
- Must an Advocate seeking an advance adjournment inform opposing counsel in advance?
- What procedure is required for Advocates-on-Record and Advocates of the Supreme Court when applying for an adjournment in advance?
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- In view of written request for adjournment expressing inability of petitioner's counsel, hearing is adjourned to a date in office. Mr. A. Karim Malik, learned counsel for the respondent, makes a grievance that he was not informed of the proposed adjournment sought on behalf of the petitioner's counsel which is hardly fair.
2. In future every Advocate-on-Record and every Advocate of Supreme Court applying for adjournment of a case in advance shall inform the other side counsel well in time so that the other Advocate is able to manage his diary.