MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs AHMAD DIN O — 2023 PLD 185 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS AHMAD DIN O. IV, Rr. 23, 24 & O. XXVI, Rr. 4, 6, 8---Change of Advocate in a review petition---Scope---Special leave to substitute a counsel in a review petition---In the present case, the ground pleaded for grant of the special leave was that the earlier counsel due to ill health and old age could not file the present review petition---Firstly, there was no medical certificate attached along with the NOC tendered by the said counsel besides the "old age" of the said counsel was also not specified---More importantly as per Order XXVI Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 ('the Rules') there was no certificate given by the earlier counsel that review was justifiable in the present case---Further, the said application was silent regarding change of Advocate on Record (AOR)---Under Order IV Rule 23 of the Rules no person having an Advocate on Record shall file a power of attorney authorizing another Advocate on Record to act for him in the same case except with the consent of the former Advocate on Record or by leave of the court, unless the former Advocate on Record is dead or is unable by reason of infirmity of mind and body to continue to act---Nothing was available on record of present case to show why, AOR who had also appeared in the Civil Appeal had been replaced without furnishing her consent to such effect or without assigning any reason for her non-appearance as provided under Rule 23---Under Order IV, Rule 24 no Advocate on Record without leave of the court can withdraw from the conduct of any case---Application seeking permission under Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Rules was not made out in the present case---No other ground was agitated before the Court for the change of the counsel or the AOR that would make out a case of grant of special leave to substitute the counsel for drafting, filing and arguing the review petition---No reason was furnished as to why AOR had been replaced, who had also appeared along with Advocate sought to be replaced in the order under review---Thus the application made under Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Rules was rejected and consequently, the review petitions were not entertained.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs AHMAD DIN O — 2023 PLD 185 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD