AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978

  1. O. 1, R. 2(1), (5) — See Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 12(2). Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Muhammad Younis and 7 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 879(C)
  2. Order 1 rule 3 — This rule clearly indicates that if any step is to be taken in connection with any cause or appeal before the Court that step shall be taken unless context otherwise requires, in the Registry or the appropriate Branch Registry. Mirza M. Aslam Baig v. Dr. Saghir Iqbal 1995 SCR 216 (B)
  3. O. 1 Rule 5 — Provides that provisions of C.P.C. shall not apply to the proceedings in the Supreme Court — O.XXXV is in part IV of the Supreme Court Rules which deals with plaints filed in original jurisdiction  — It has no application to other parts of the Rules. Mehmood Ahmed v. Muhammad Idrees & another 2000 SCR 564 (B)
  4. Order IV rules 1, 12 and O. XLIII rule I — Objection by the respondents Counsel that Attorney-General of Pakistan cannot represent the Federation of Pakistan because he is not enrolled as an Advocate of this Court — Under Order IV rule I an advocate can plead only if he is enrolled as such — Under Order IV rule 12 an advocate has to be enrolled as an advocate on record for acting and pleading on behalf of his client. Attorney-General was permitted to address the arguments in relaxation of relevant rules in exercise of the powers vested in this Court under rule I of Order XLIII of the Supreme Court Rules. Fedration of Pakistan  v. Malik Muhammad Miskeen & others 1995 SCR 43 (D)
  5. Order IV rule 9 — A power of attorney has to be filed in the Court by the person or authority which is to be signed either by the party or an authorised agent — Secretary of the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division signed the vakalatnama — Officer memorandum of the Section Officer law and Justice Division in any case is of no help because it was not filed with the appeal — Since it has not been shown that Mr. Ahmad Sadiq  was duly authorised to sign on behalf of the Govt. of Pakistan, the appeal is rendered to be without lawful authority.(As per Basharat Ahmad Shaikh,J). Fedration of Pakistan v. Malik Muhammad Miskeen & others 1995 SCR 43 (S) PLD 1984 SC (AJK) 13 referred and relied.
  6. Order IV rule 19 — Every Advocate on record shall before acting on behalf of any person or party file in the Registry a power of attorney in the prescribed form authorising him to act. (As per basharat Ahmad Shaikh,J) Fedration of Pakistan v. Malik M. Miskeen 1995 SCR 43 (N)
  7. O.IV r. 19 — Every advocate shall file in the Registry a power of attorney in order to act on behalf of any person or party in the prescribed from authorising him to act — Rule 21 prohibits an advocate from withdrawal of conducting the case for the reason of non-payment of fee to him by his client, costs or other charges, except with the leave of the Court — If permission is not sought from the Court for withdrawal from the conduct of any case then under rule 22 , every Advocate shall be personally liable to the Court for due payment of all fees and charges payable to the Court. Azad Govt. and 8 others v. Kashmir Polytex Ltd 2001 SCR 140 (A)
  8. Order V rule I — It provides that the powers of the Court in relation to the matters mentioned therein including the one existing at serial No.24 may be exercised by the Judge in Chamber. Mirza Muhammad Aslam Baig v. Dr. Saghir Iqbal 1995 SCR 216 (C)
  9. Order V rule 3 — Appeal against the order of the Registrar Supreme Court — Return of P.L.A. for filing the same at Mirpur Circuit — In the Supreme Court Rules it is not provided that petitions pertaining to circuits of Supreme Court shall necessarily be filed in the circuits and could not be entertained at principal seat — There is an order of Full Court dated 24.6.1979, which contains that the petitions from Mirpur shall “normally” be instituted at Branch Registry Mirpur — The word “normally” as defined in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary means “in a normal manner; usually”. Therefore, on the ground of limitation or due to some emergency if a party wants to file some cause at principal seat then that should be entertained at principal seat, however, subsequently that should be sent to respective circuit. Order of the Registrar set aside and a direction to entertain the P.L.A. issued. Syed Naseeb Hussain Shah and others v. Azad Govt. And others 2008 SCR 284 (A)
  10. Order V rule 24 — The Registrar and Deputy Registrar have the powers under rules to record the evidence on miscellaneous application relating to the abatement proceedings — Particularly when they have been directed by the Judge  sitting in chamber. Mirza Muhammad Aslam Baig v. Dr. Saghir Iqbal 1995 SCR 216 (D)
  11. At the time of enrolment of an advocate before Supreme Court he has to give an undertaking and an Indemnity Bond has to be filed by him under 6th Schedule of O.VI of Supreme Court Rules — He is under an obligation to observe and abide by all the rules, regulations and practice of Supreme Court — Thus filing of conditional power of attorney would be in violation of rules, regulations and not in consonance with the practice of Supreme Court. Azad Govt. and 8 others v. Kashmir Polytex Ltd 2001 SCR 140 (C)
  12. O. VIII rules 1 & 2 — It is purely within the discretion of Court to call a person for cross-examination who deposed an affidavit — The Court is vested with the power to exempt that person from personal appearance or it may direct otherwise — Keeping in view the conduct of Dr. Muhammad  Bashir Goraya who all along has been trying to procrastinate the matter and to prolong the case in order to avert the fate of his case, the application moved on his behalf under Order VIII rules 1 and 2 of AJK Supreme Court Rules rejected. Al–Khair University & others v. Al–Khair Trust of Pakistan and others 2003 SCR 180 (A)
  13. O. X, R. 2 — Accidental slips and omissions can be supplied and necessary correction can be made in the judgment after its pronouncement irrespective of any period of limitation. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Limited Mangla Mirpur v. Dy. Comm. of Income Tax  2004 SCR 158 (D)
  14. O. X, R. 2 — Accidental slip or omission — Rectification of — No limitation has been prescribed by the rules — Error can be corrected irrespective of period of limitation. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Limited Mangla Mirpur v. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax 2004 SCR 158 (E)
  15. O. X, R. 2 & O. XLIII, rules 4 & 5 — Application for clarification of judgment — Supreme Court jurisdiction of — Held: This Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief — Reasons stated. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Limited Mangla Mirpur v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 3 others 2004 SCR 158 (L)
  16. — order XII, rule 3 — service upon respondent(s) failure of — u/o XII, Rule 3, it is mandatory for the appellant to serve on the respondent the copies of petition of appeal — copies of petition not served on the respondent on the ground that only contesting candidate is respondent No.1 — under rules on the subject that copies of petition of appeal shall be served on the respondents — there is no distinction of contesting or non-contesting candidates, held: appeal liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Saqib Majeed Raja versus Ch. Latif Akber & others 2023 SCR 913 (A)
  17. Order XII, Order XIII, Rule 1 — Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — section 42(11) (D) — direct appeal to Supreme Court — limitation — Order XII deals with the appeals under section 42(11) of constitution Act — No limitation is provided for filing an appeal from the judgment & decree of the High Court — Under Order XIII, Rule 1, the limitation for filing PLA is 60 days — No period of limitation for filing appeal under section 42(11) (D) of the Constitution Act in the Supreme Court Rules, is prescribed — in the case reported as 2004 SCR 459, a full bench of Court resolved the controversy — after going through the history of statutes, the Court reached the conclusion that non-provision of limitation doesn’t mean that party is at liberty to file an appeal from the order at any time he likes — It was resolved that limitation for filing an appeal under section 42(11) of the Constitution Act cannot be more than the one provided for filing PLA under Order XIII, Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules — the view is reaffirmed. Ghulam Asghar v. Sarwar Begum & 15 others  2015 SCR 141 (C&D) 2004 SCR 459 rel.
  18. O. XIII — Obtaining of certificate of fitness from the High Court for filing an appeal — There is no such requirement under Supreme Court Rules. M. Khan  v. M. Sharif  2001 SCR 49 (B)
  19. O. XIII — Civil P.L.A. — Vital legal point — Judgment of the Service Tribunal suffers from no infirmity or illegality nor any vital legal point is involved — Petition dismissed. Ghulam Sarwar v. Sarwar Hussain Shah and 3 others 2003 SCR 394 (A)
  20. — order XIII — limitation for lodging the petition for leave to appeal is fixed as 60 days — the petition is barred by one day, for which no explanation whatsoever has been furnished — neither any application for condonation of delay nor any affidavit has been filed. Secretary E & S Education & another v. Muhammad Shoukat Khan & others 2023 SCR 296 (A) 2003 SCR 43 ref.
  21. Order XIII rule I — Delay condonation of — Petition for leave to appeal time barred by 18 days — Delay of each day should be explained to the satisfaction of Court strict view has been taken in matters of condonation of delay-Condonation refused. Munir Hussain v. Custodian Evacuee Property & others 1995 SCR 349 (A) 1992 SCR 338, Unreported Judgment titled Azad Govt. Vs. Rashid Ahamd Kattal (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1987) decided on 17.2.1988) (PLJ 1983 SC AJ&K 31),PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K 25) ref. and relied.
  22. Order XIII, Rule I — A petition for leave to appeal has to be lodged in this Court within 60 days of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from or as the case may be, within thirty days from the date of refusal or grant of certificate under Section 42(ii) of the Constitution by the High Court, provided that the Court may for sufficient cause extend the time. Ali Gohar v. Zaighum Saleem & others 1995 SCR 359 (A)
  23. O. XIII R. I — The petition for leave to appeal shall be lodged within 60 days of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from or within 30 days from the date of refusal of grant of certificate u/s. 42 (11) of the Constitution by the High Court provided that the Court may have sufficient cause to extend time. Azad Govt. And Another v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi 2002 SCR 302 (B)
  24. Order XIII rule 1 — A petition for leave to appeal or an appeal can be filled against the order or judgment of the High Court — In any case various orders or judgment of the High Court — In any case various orders or judgments passed by the High Court cannot be challenged through a single petition or appeal before this Court.M. Yunus and 5 others v. Laeeq Ah.Khan2004 SCR245 (A)
  25. Order XIII, Rule 1 — Mst. Kalsoom Begum, being co-allottee of the land, in whose favour a decree has also been passed by the trial Court was no impleaded as party before the first appellate Court, High Court as well as before this Court. When this fact has come into the knowledge of the appellant, he moved an application for amendment in the memo of appeal before this Court. Held: The application for amendment in the memo of appeal is not beneficial to the appellant because the appeal before the District Judge and the High Court was no competently field without impleading her in the line of the respondents. A valuable right had accrued to the other party, therefore, the application for amendment in the memo of appeal is also time barred because limitation for filing petition for leave to appeal under Order XIII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 is 60 days. The application is dismissed. M. Hussain v. Abdul Rasheed & 6 others 2014 SCR 1636 (A,C)
  26. — Order XIII, Rule 1— seprate orders or judgments passed by the High Court cannot be challenged through single petition or appeal before Supreme Court. Sheikh M. Siddique & another v. Mst. Rashida Idress & others 2022 SCR 1406 (A,B) Habib Bank Ltd. Vs. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum, decided on 28.03.1995 & 2004 SCR 245 ref.
  27. Order XIII, Rule 2 & Order XVIII, Rule 6 — recognize the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan — the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan shall be followed keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (F)
  28. — Order XIII, Rule 2 & Order XVIII, Rule 6— binding nature of the judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan—the judicial system and laws enforced in AJ&K & Pakistan, relating to Qur’an & Sunnah are identical—thus the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan also deemed to be effective and having binding force in AJ&K. It also finds mentioned in Order XIII and Order XVIII, of Supreme Court Rules, 1978. Muhammad Anwar Khan & others v. Muhammad Sarwar Khan & others  2017 SCR 733 (C)  PLD 1975 AJ&K 27 & PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 161 rel.            
  29. —O. XIII, rule 2 & O. XVIII  rule 6— recognize the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, hence, the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan shall be followed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Pharmacy Council of Pakistan  versus Faraz Latif & 20 others  2021 SCR 629 (A) PLD 1978 SC AJ&K 161 & 2015 SCR 159 rel.
  30. Order XIII, Rule 3 — the provision of order XIII, rule 3 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the same merits dismissal of petition for leave to appeal/appeal. Syed Abid Hussain  v. Administrator Auqaf& others 2015 SCR 1220 (A) 2000 SCR 70 & Muhammad As am & others vrs Khadim Hussain  & others (Civil appeal No.  68 of  2013  decided on 14.2.2015)   ref.
  31. —Order XIII, Rule 3—petition for leave to appeal—mandatory documents for computation of limitation— only the copy of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court are the requisite certified copies— decree sheet of High Court neither is requisite nor mandatory under the statutory provision of law— the appellants are entitled for the exclusion of time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment and the grounds of appeal before the High Court. Muhammad Shafi & 2 others v. Akbar Ali & others 2017 SCR 678 (A)
  32. —Order XIII, Rule 3—Petition for leave to appeal—mandatory documents for computation of limitation—for filing petition for leave to appeal in civil matters, the requisite certified copies are the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with the grounds of appeal or application before the High Court— no copy of any other document or decree is required or necessary— the benefit of exclusion of time in computation of limitation can only be extended in relation to the copies which are mandatory —Held: The time spent in obtaining the certified copies of the documents which are not mandatory cannot be excluded while computing the limitation. Muhammad Ashraf  Khan v. Muhammad Akram Khan & others 2017 SCR 863 (A)
  33. —Order XIII, Rule 3—non-furnishing of amended memo of writ petition—Petition for leave to appeal is liable to be dismissed due to non-compliance of statutory provision i.e. nonfurnishing of certified copies. Azad Govt. & others v. Muhammad Ishaq Khan 2019 SCR 383 (A) 2015 SCR 126 & 1220 rel
  34. —Order XIII, rule 3—petition of leave to appeal–maintainability of—mandatory documents— copy of the impugned judgment obtained by Advocate, who is neither a party nor counsel for party before Supreme Court— u/o XIII, Rule 3, a party filing PLA is required to file four copies of PLA accompanied by the judgment/order appealed from and the other relevant documents— the copies of such documents shall be obtained in his/her name by himself/herself or through the recognised attorney/agent, if he is duly appointed prior to the filing of PLA— copy of the impugned judgment  obtained by Advocate, representing the petitioner in High Court—copy may be utilized for any other purpose, except to agitate the cause before appellate forum. Muhammad Sameeb Khan Abbasi v. AJ&K P.S.C & others 2022 SCR 552 (A) 2005 SCR 211 and 2002 SCR 302 ref
  35. —Order XIII, Rule 3—appeal— non furnishing of grounds of appeal before the High Court—held: appeal is liable to be dismissed due to non-compliance of statutory provision of law i.e. non furnishing of certified copy of grounds of appeal filed before the Court below. Muhammad Rafique & others v. Azad Govt. & others  2022 SCR 81 (A & B)  2015 SCR 1220 & 2005 SCR 246  ref —Order XIII, rule 3—PLA—maintainability of—held: PLA has not properly been filed as copies of the impugned judgment have been obtained by a person alien to the proceedings before Supreme Court. Muhammad Sameeb Khan Abbasi v. AJ&K P.S.C & others 2022 SCR 552 (C)
  36. —Order XIII, Rules 3  the petitioner shall lodge at least four
  37. copies of the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court— the provision is mandatory, non-compliance of which entails dismissal of PLA/appeal. Mumtaz Hussain Sabir v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2022 SCR 685 (A)
  38. — Order XIII, Rules 3—PLA/appeal— maintainability of— impugned judgment consolidated one through which six writ petitions were disposed of  the appellants have annexed the copy of only one ground of appeal/writ petition with each appeal— appeals dismissed on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules. Mumtaz Hussain Sabir v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2022 SCR 685 (B)  2015 SCR 1220 rel.
  39. —Order XIII, Rule 3—through the impugned consolidated judgment three writ petitions decided— appellants failed to annex with the memo of appeal the copies of all the three writ petitions, which is a mandatory requirement under Order XIII, Rule 3— appeal no maintainable. Ilyas Jandalvi & others v. P.D.A & others 2022 SCR 812 (A) 2015 SCR 1220 rel.
  40. —Order XIII, Rule 3—requisite documents for PLA—a party filing the petition for leave to appeal is required to file four copies of the petition for leave to appeal accompanied by the judgment/order appealed from and the other relevant documents and the copies of such documents shall be obtained in his/her name by himself/herself or through the recognized attorney/agent, who may be even an Advocate, if he is duly appointed prior to the filing of petition for leave to appeal. Shahnawaz & others v. Muhammad Mohmand & others 2022 SCR 1397 (A)
  41. —Order XIII, Rule 3— the copy of the impugned judgment obtained in the name of or through any other person may be utilized for any other purpose, except to agitate the cause before the appellate forum. Held—It is consistent view of Supreme Court that when law provides doing of a particular thing in a particular way, all other modes of doing it are prohibited. Shahnawaz & others v. Muhammad Mohmand & others 2022 SCR 1397 (B) 2002 SCR 302, 2003 SCR 287, 2004 SCR 104, 2005 SCR 211, 2022 SCR 552 and PLJ 2022 SC (AJK) 131 rel.
  42. —Order XIII, Rule, 3—copy obtained by a person alien to proceedings— under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978, a party filing the petition for leave to appeal is required to file four copies of the petition for leave to appeal accompanied by the judgment/order appealed from and the other relevant documents and the copies of such documents shall be obtained in his/her name by himself/herself or through the recognized attorney/agent, who may be even an Advocate, if he is duly appointed prior to the filing of petition for leave to appeal. In the instant case, the PLA/appeal has been filed on behalf of Raja Bashir Khan by Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, Advocate, whereas, the copy of the impugned judgment has been obtained by one Farooq Hussain, who is alien to the proceedings before Supreme Court. The copy of the impugned judgment obtained in the name of or through any other person may be utilized for any other purpose, except to agitate the cause before the appellate forum. Held—it is consistent view of Supreme Court that when law provides doing of a particular thing in a particular way, all other modes of doing it are prohibited. Raja Bashir Khan v. Raja Zafar Khan & another 2022 SCR 1435 (A) 2002 SCR 302, 2003 SCR 287, 2004 SCR 104, 2005 SCR 211, PLJ 2022 SC (AJK) 131 rel.
  43. —Order XIII, Rule 3—copy obtained by a person alien to the proceedings— the certified copies of the impugned judgment passed by the leaned High Court have been obtained by Sardar Tariq Hussain, advocate, whereas the appeal has been filed by Raja Mazhar Waheed Khan, Additional Advocate-General and Mr. Sajid Hussain Abbasi, Advocate. Sardar Tariq Hussain, advocate, is neither party in the appeal nor is the counsel for the appellant and certified copy of the impugned judgment obtained in his name can be utilized for any other purpose, except for institution of the petition for leave to appeal/appeal, as provided by Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978. Sardar Mushtaq Ahmed v. F.W.O & others 2022 SCR 1642 (A) 2005 SCR 211 ref.
  44. —Order XIII, Rule 3—three impugned consolidated judgment —copies of all the appeals mandatory—appellant failed to annex all the three memo of copies of appeals, as provided in AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978—the refereed legal provisions are mandatory in nature, non-compliance of which would render the appeal as non-maintainable. Sardar Mushtaq Ahmed v. F.W.O & others 2022 SCR 1642 (B) Comissioner of Income Tax & others v. PIA Corporation & others (Civil Appeals No. 23,24,25 and 26 of 2012, decided on 26.05.2022 rel.
  45. —Order XIII, Rule 3—alien to proceedings— It is now settled proposition that the requirement of appending the certified copy with the memo of appeal includes the copies obtained in the name of the appellant or through his legally appointed counsel or agent. Raja M. Rashid Khan v. Muhammad Adeel & others 2022 SCR 1661 (A) 2005 SCR 211, 2013 SCR 1102 & 2016 SCR 773 rel.
  46. Rule 3(I) & (ii) order XIII are mandatory in nature and in number of cases this Court without entering into the merits of the CASES dismissed such appeals on this very ground — Held: Observance of rule 3 order XIII is mandatory and any party failing to observe the same. Muhammad Hanif  v. Muhammad  Bashir & another 2003 SCR 489 (A)
  47. —Order XIII, rule 3(1) (ii)— PLA shall be accompanied by the judgment and the order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court and  the order of  High Court refusing grant of certificate u/s 42(11) of the Constitution, if any— the filing of copy of decree-sheet not mandatory. Munshi Khan & others v. Mehboob Khan 2017 SCR 129 (C)
  48. Order XIII rule 3 compliance of the rule is mandatory and if it is not complied with within the time allowed or within the period extended by the court for sufficient reasons appeal is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Allah Ditta & others v. Sher Ahmed Khan 1993 SCR 325 (A)
  49. Order XIII rule 3-Apart from the certified copy of the judgment and order sought to be appealed from a certified copy of the grounds of appeal or application before the High Court shall be lodged. Rafique Shah  v.  Muhammad Aslam and others 1993 SCR 344 (A)
  50. O. XIII R. 3 — Memorandum of appeal — Failure to file — Effect — Rule in fact applies to the cases where the judgment and order sought to be appealed from relates to the High Court and not to the Service Tribunal. Aftab Ahmad v. Khurshid Hussain & 3 others 1998 SCR 89 (B)
  51. Order XIII, rule 3 — Copies of three documents have to be attached with petition for leave to appeal —Judgment and order sought to be appealed from, grounds of ‘appeal’ or ‘application’ and order of High Court refusing grant of certificate. Ajaib Hussain and another v. Zareen Akhar and 11 others 2000 SCR 70 (A)
  52. O. XIII R. 3 — Provides that petition for leave to appeal shall be accompanied by the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with the grounds of appeal or application before High Court — This being a mandatory provision, its non-compliance renders the appeal as incompetent. Vice Chancellor and 4 others v. Fazal Hussain Rabbani 2001 SCR 541 (A)
  53. O. XIII R.3 — A petition for leave to appeal is required to be accompanied by the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal before the High Court — The copies must be obtained either by the head of department or by a person duly authorised in this behalf — In the present case copies were obtained by Muhammad Jamil, who is just a Cooli and was temporarily asked to appear on behalf of the department in the Court at Pallandri — Copies obtained by Muhammad Jamil for his use could not be used for filing P.L.A. by the department or the Govt. before this Court — Mandatory provisions have not been complied with, therefore, appeal of the Govt. is not competent.  AJK Govt.  v. Abdul Salam Butt & 3 others 2003 SCR 287 (A)
  54. O. XIII rule 3 read with order XXII r. 13 — Provides that petition for leave to appeal shall be accompanied by the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with the grounds of appeal or application before the High Court — This being a mandatory provision, its non-compliance renders the appeal as incompetent. Perveen Akhter v. Abdul Khaliq 2004 SCR 32 (A) 1993 SCR 325, 2000 SCR 70 rel.
  55. O. 13 R. 3 — What was required of petitioner, was a copy of judgment sought to be appealed from and copy of the memorandum of appeal or application before High Court for lodging petition for leave to appeal — Copy of decree of High Court was not a requisite document to be attached along with the memorandum of petition for leave to appeal. Fakhar Mahmood v. Fahmida Begum and 10 others 2004 SCR 526 (C)
  56. Order XIII rule 3 — Petitioner who wants to avail the right of appeal should obtain the relevant copies in his own name either personally or through his recognized attorney or agent who may be even his Advocate — The petitioner is required to file four copies of his petition for leave to appeal accompanied by the impugned judgment and copies of other necessary documents. AJK Govt. & 2 others v. Ch. Khadim Hussain Ex. SDO 2005 SCR 211 (A)
  57. O. XIII rule 3-By now it stands settled that delay of each and every day has to be explained — Under Order XIII rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, it was mandatory for the petitioner to file memo of writ petition along with the petition well in time — The observance of rule is mandatory and failure of its observance renders the petition incompetent — The required copies were filed after expiry of period of limitation of 60 days — There was no valid institution of petition — Petition dismissed. Education Dept. of AJK v. Night Ghulam Rasool 2005 SCR 435 (A)
  58. O. XIII, R. 3 — It is mandatory that the attested copy of the order, against which the appeal is filed in the High Court, is to be filed along with the petition for leave to appeal — The learned Advocate for petitioner filed the copy of the judgment much after the date of limitation provided for filing petition for leave to appeal — The petitioners have been negligent and indolent in pursuing their cause — Petition dismissed. Jameel Ahmed & another v. Tasawar Yaseen & 2 others 2006 SCR 209 (A)
  59. Order XIII, Rule 3 — petitioner shall lodge at least 4 copies of petitions for leave to appeal, the judgment/ order sought to be appealed from together with ground of appeal or application before High Court — The provisions of Rule are mandatory ad non-compliance results into dismissal of petition for leave to appeal. Muhammad Azam &  others v. Khadim Hussain & 2 others 2015 SCR 126 (A) 2000 SCR 70 rel.   
  60. Order XIII, Rule, 3 — Photostat copy of memo of appeal attested by the Advocate cannot be treated as copy under order XIII, Rule, 3. Muhammad Azam &  others v. Khadim Hussain & 2 others 2015 SCR 126 (C)
  61. — Order XIII, Rule 3—High Court through the impugned consolidated judgment decided two appeals— WAPDA filed two appeals but failed to annex the copy of the grounds of appeal before the High Court which is the violation of mandatory provision of Order XIII, Rule 3— non-compliance merits dismissal of appeal. WAPDA v. Ch. Muhammad Masoom & others  2022 SCR 883 (A)
  62. —Order XIII, Rule 3— a party filing the PLA is required to file 4 copies of the petition accompanied by the judgment/order appealed from and other relevant documents— the copies of such documents shall be obtained in his/her name by himself/herself or through the recognized attorney/agent, who may be even an Advocate, if he is duly appointed prior to the filing of PLA— PLA/appeal filed by X whereas, the copy of the impugned judgment obtained by Y—the copy of the impugned judgment obtained in the name of or through any other person may be utilized for any other purpose, except to agitate the cause before the appellate forum. Muhammad Sajid khan v. University of Kotli & others  2022 SCR 986 (A)2002 SCR 302, 2003 SCR 287, 2004 SCR 104 and 2005 SCR 211 ref.
  63. — order XIII, Rule 3 — limitation for filing PLA is 60 days — Raja Khalid Khan & another v. Raja Mahmood Iqbal & others 2023 SCR 261 (C)
  64. — order XIII, Rule 3 — alien to the proceedings — in the instant case, the petition for leave to appeal has been filed on behalf of the Ehtesab Bureau by the Chief/ Deputy Chief Prosecutor, whereas, the copy of the impugned judgment has been obtained by some representative (پیروکار(, who is neither the recognized agent nor the party in the petition for leave to appeal, rather alien to the proceedings before this Court, hence, the petition for leave to appeal has not competently been filed. Ehtesab Bureau v. Fareed Ahmed & others 2023 SCR 203 (A) 2004 SCR 104 & 2005 SCR 255 ref.
  65. — order XIII, Rule 3 — copies of mandatory documents — obtained by law officer, who is neither the recognized agent nor the party in the petition for leave to appeal rather alien to the proceedings before this Court, hence, the petition for leave to appeal has not competently been filed. Development Authority Mzd. & others v. Ansar Baha-ud-Din & others 2023 SCR 171 (A) 2004 SCR 104 & 2005 SCR 255 ref.
  66.  — order XIII, Rule 3 — copies of mandatory documents — obtained by Advocate, who is neither a party nor counsel for the party before Supreme Court — maintainability of — alien to proceedings — in the instant case, the PLA/ appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants by Sh. Masood Iqbal, Advocate, whereas, the copy of the impugned judgment has been obtained by Naeem Ahmed Mughal, Advocate, who is alien to the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Held: the copy of the impugned judgment obtained in the name of or through any other person may be utilized for any other purpose, except to agitate the cause before the Supreme Court. Qasim Iqbal & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 175 (A) 2002 SCR 302, 2003 SCR 287, 2004 SCR 104, 2005 SCR 211, 2022 SCR 552 & PLJ 2022 SC(AJ&K) 131 ref.
  67. — order XIII, Rule 3 — non-furnishing of amended memo of writ petition — while filing the petition for leave to appeal — non-compliance of statutory provision of law — Held: this Court in a number of pronouncements has held that the provisions of Order XIII, Rule 3 of the AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978 are mandatory in nature and the petition for leave to appeal is liable to be dismissed due to non-compliance of the statutory provision of law. Iqbal Hussain Nizami Awan v. Secretary Finance & others 2023 SCR 144 (A) 2019 SCR 383, ref.
  68. — order XIII, rule 3 — mandatory documents to be annexed with memo of PLA/Appeal — u/o XIII, rule 3, the petitioner shall lodge at least 04 copies of the judgment/order sought to be appealed from together with the grounds of appeal/application before the High Court etc. — the copies shall be certified to be correct — the statutory provisions is mandatory in nature and non-compliance of same merits dismissal of PLA/Appeal — appellants assailed consolidated judgment of High Court by filing separate appeals but not annexed in all appeals the respective writ petitions — held: according to principle of law laid down by Supreme Court, the appellants were duty bound to annex all the three writ petitions with each memo of appeal. Commissioner Inland Revenue & others versus Zahoor Iqbal Awan & others 2023 SCR 775  (A &B) 2015 SCR 1220 rel. & 2022 SCR 812/865/883 rel.
  69. — Order XIII, Rule 3 — Petition for leave to appeal — mandatory documents — consolidated judgment of High Court — only one memorandum of writ petition annexed with PLA — held: u/o XIII, rule 3, it is mandatory that petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of PLA from the judgment/order sought to be appealed together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court — the provisions are mandatory and non-compliance entails upon dismissal of PLA/appeal. Muhammad Aghraz Khan & others vs Sajid Rasheed & others 2024 SCR 234(A) 2015 SCR 1220 rel.
  70. Order XIII Rule 3(I) — Does not require that a copy of judgment of District Judge must be filed with the petition for leave to appeal — Therefore, the time spent in getting the copy of that judgment cannot be excluded from the period of limitation for filing the petition for leave to appeal. Abdul Aziz & 4 others v. Mst. Moorta Begum & others 1996 SCR 372 (A)
  71. Order XIII rule 3(I) & (ii) — Non filing of grounds of appeal — Effect of — Cross  appeals/revisions —The accused-respondent was convicted by the trial Court — He challenged the conviction order before the Shariat Court — The complainant as well as father of the deceased filed appeal/revision for enhancement of sentence — The appeal of appellant was dismissed — The appeal of accused- respondent was allowed — He was acquitted — Held: There is no need to consider the grounds of appeal filed before the Shariat Court for enhancement of sentence because the order of acquittal was recorded by the Shariat Court in favour of accused-respondent — The question which needs resolution is as to whether acquittal order is an accordance with law or not — Therefore, Order XIII,rule 3(I) & (ii) of the Supreme Court Rules has got no application in this case. Muhammad Siddique and another v. Karamat Hussain and another 2005 SCR 41 (A)
  72. — order XIII, rule 3 (1-A) — mandatory documents — lists of legal representatives — failure to annex with PLA — effect of — compliance of Order XIII, Rule 3 (1-A), is mandatory and failing to comply with it entails dismissal of PLA/Appeal on this sole ground — whether the list of legal representative was filed before the trial Court or not, can only be determined either from the objection raised by other party or from the certification issued by the trial Court — u/o XIII, rule 3 (1-A), filing of list of legal representatives along with PLA/Appeal is mandatory — the petitioner has not submitted any application for bringing on record the list of legal representatives within the prescribed period of limitation. Muhammad Aslam versus Fazal Hussain & others 2023 SCR 738 (A & B)
  73. — order XIII, rule 3 (1-A) — held: requirement mentioned in Order XIII, Rule 3, are mandatory and non-fulfilment of even any one of the same would render the appeal/PLA incompetent — petition filed in violation of Rule 3 (1-A), for not annexing the copy of list of legal representatives, held filed incompetently. Muhammad Aslam versus Fazal Hussain & others 2023 SCR 738 (C)
  74. O. XIII, R. 3 (I) & (ii) — Appealed filed without a copy of grounds of appeal — Held: Filing of aforesaid document was necessary — Application to file the said document did not show sufficient cause, as such dismissed. Sajid Mehmood v. Khalid Pervaiz Qureshi 2005 SCR 179 (A)
  75. —Order XIII, Rule 3(iii), Order XVII, Rule 4— Affidavit in support of PLA. —not sworn as per requirements of the Supreme Court Rules—PLA not maintainable—liable to be dismissed—Affidavit filed by the petitioners is not sworn as per requirements under Order XIII, rule 3 and Order XVII, rule 4, of  the AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1998.PLA liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Rel: Azad Govt. Javed Iqbal, civil appeal No. 58 of 2015, decided on 23.02.2016 Syed Kafiat Husssain & another v. Syeda Khidja Kazmi & others 2017 SCR 999 (A)
  76. —Order XIII, rule 2 & Order XVIII, rule 6—judgement of Supreme Court of Pakistan—to be followed by Supreme Court of AJ&K, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a case. Sikandar Azam & others v. Zulqarnain Akhtar & others  2022 SCR 1133 (B) 2015 SCR 159 rel.
  77.                 —O.XIII, Rules, 3, 4 and O.XVII, Rule 4—maintainability of appeal/PLA— Contention that affidavits filed by the appellant in support of the PLA and the service upon the respondent have been filed by the advocate, who was not engaged by the appellant, herein, at the relevant time and that the copies appended with the memorandum of appeal had been obtained by an unauthorised person, who was not the counsel for the appellant on the relevant date,  hence these cannot be considered to have been filed in accordance with the provisions of AJ&K Supreme Court Rules 1978. Held: we are of the considered opinion that on the ground of procedural technicality the relief cannot be refused to the party—Further held: that the defect is of technical nature, therefore, this objection does not preclude the Court from deciding the case on merits, hence repelled. Shahzed Rauf v. Shabana Yasmin 2017 SCR 1522 (A,B&C)  PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 42, 1995 CLC 1761, PLJ 1982 SC (AJ&K) 35 & 1990 CLC 301 rel.
  78. O. XIII RR. 6&7 — If the Court grants leave to appeal it shall be ordered for the deposit of security — If no direction is issued by the Court in respect of period of security then the security shall be deposited within one month of the period when the appeal is ripe for hearing — The rule provides that deposit of security shall be subject to any direction by the Court — In present case the Court has specifically imposed the condition that appellant shall deposit security within a period of fortnight otherwise the leave granting order shall stand automatically rescinded — Leave was granted on 17.6.2008 and period of fortnight expires on 2.7.2008 — Notice was also issued — If period is calculated from the date of knowledge it expires on 5.7.2008 — Appellant has not moved any application for modification of order or extension of time for depositing security — Held: Leave granting order automatically stood rescinded on 2.7.2008. Zaheer Iqbal v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2009 SCR 366 (A)
  79. O. XIV — Additional document — An application was moved for bringing on record previous posting and transfer orders passed from time to time by the competent authority — Previously such type of application was repelled by this Court on the ground that O.XIV of the Supreme Court Rules itself negates this contention and it was held that for hearing of appeal in this Court the file is to be prepared out of the record which formed part of the record of the Tribunal or Court below and not any other extraneous document — Further held:  That order XIV envisages the preparation of the paper book only  out of the record which formed part of the  record of the Court below — Rule 12 of the order XIV cannot be interpreted to mean that the documents in the paper book would also include such documents which were not part of the record of Court below — It was also opined that if extraneous record is accepted at appellate stage then such practice would defeat most of the procedural provisions contained in the Supreme Court Rules — Particularly when the procedure is being followed by all the Courts below of civil nature including Service Tribunal under the provision of C.P.C. — Held: The appellant should have remained vigilant in Service Tribunal and place reliance upon the documents by appending them with written statement — Mere document cannot be read for and against any proposition until and unless pleading is properly drafted in order to accommodate the reliance of such documents. M. Azam v. Azad Govt. 2003 SCR 292 (A)
  80. Order XV, Rule 8 — Impleadment of legal representatives — limitation — Application for impleadment of legal representatives under order XV, Rule, 8 may be filed within 90 days — the Court has power to extend the time, if sufficient cause is shown by a party. Muhammad Tufail v. Muhammad Idress& others 2015 SCR 672 (A)
  81. — Order XV, Rule 8 — impleadment of legal heirs— an application for impleadment of the legal heirs may be filed within 90 days —Supreme Court may extend the time for arraying the legal representative on showing sufficient cause. Secretary Forests & others v. Ghulam Haider Khan & another 2022 SCR 876 (A) 2015 SCR 672 & 2020 SCR 262 ref.
  82. — Order XV, Rule 8 — impleadment of legal heirs of deceased appellant/respondent — delay — condonation of— sufficient cause — respondent died on 11.12.2020 — appellants filed application for arraying the legal representatives without mentioning that on which date the respondent died or how they got knowledge about death—no affidavit in support of contents of application or application for condonation of the delay is filed— mere assertion that the appellants were not in knowledge about the death of respondent cannot be treated as sufficient ground— application dismissed. Secretary Forests & others v. Ghulam Haider Khan & another 2022 SCR 876 (B)
  83. O. XV, R. 80 — Abatement of appeal — Application for arraying legal representatives of a party is to be filed within 90 days — Application was filed which was beyond period of limitation i.e. 71 days after the limitation — Condonation of delay — Held:  If the parties are private and residing at same place, then it can easily be said that the parties know each other and their legal representation — Instant case was of a private person and particulars of legal heirs could not be known to an employee of the Department — Concerned employee tried to ascertain knowledge — When knowledge, said employee could obtain, he filed the application within period of limitation — Said objection was repelled by Supreme Court. Chief Administrator Auqaf v. Karram Hussain and 3 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 621 (A)
  84.                 —Order XV—substitution of legal heirs of deceased—proposition of—Court held: “The application for arraying the legal representatives of deceased, Anwar Bibi is not competent because the same can be filed for the substitution of legal heirs of a person who died during the pendency of the case before this Court. The appeal before the High Court was of the appellant and it was his duty to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased respondent. Thus, the order of the Registrar is legal one, it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is further held that the appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 5.5.2016 was filed in this Court on 2.7.2016, whereas Mst. Anwar Bibi respondent No.3 therein, died on 21.1.2012, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. As the party has not died during pendency of the case before this Court, therefore, even otherwise the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased is not maintainable”. ERRA/SERRA v. Muhammad Aziz Khan & others 2017 SCR 732
  85. —Order XV, rule 7 & 8 — legal heirs of proforma-respondent impleadment of—appeal against the order of Registrar —parties have to mention the specified date of death—version being ambiguous one and without any proof—the registrar dismissed application on ground that no affidavit has been filed in support of the contents application—even arraying of legal heirs of proforma- respondent does not affect the rights of respondents— appeal accepted in circu mstances. Abdul Waheed Khan v. Mir Akbar Khan and others 2018 SCR 137 (A) —Order XV, Rules 7 & 8, AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978— Contention of the appellant that he gained the knowledge about the death of respondent first on receiving back the A.D. receipts—Additional Registrar did not consider the proviso for condonation of delay—Held: no such ground has been incorporated in the application for arraying legal heirs. There is no cavil with the proposition that under the proviso attached to Order XV, Rule 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, this Court may extend the time for arraying the legal representative but the applicant has to show sufficient cause. In this instant case, the appellant has filed the simple application with the prayer for arraying the legal representatives of the deceased and has neither mentioned that on what date the respondent died nor mentioned that how he got the knowledge about his death, whereas the respondents have specifically alleged in the objections filed on the application that the deceased died about seven years ago during the pendency of appeal before the High Court. Furthermore, the appellant and the deceased respondent belong to same village/area and are also relatives with each other. This stance of the respondents has not been rebutted by the appellant. In this state of affairs, I am convinced, that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for extension of the time for arraying the legal representatives of the deceased respondent and the Additional Registrar has passed the well-reasoned order. Muhammad Tariq v.  Azad Govt. & 35 others  2020 SCR 262  (A)
  86. O. XLIII, rule.4 — inherent  powers — moulded relief — grant of — According  to the statutory provision of Order XLIII, rule 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, the Supreme Court is vested with the powers to mould relief or grant the same to any of the parties whether appeal is filed or not. Kh. Muhammad Latif v. Bilal Salis & others 2015 SCR  906 (C) 1984 CLC 309, 2012 SCR 420, PLD 1965 15 & PLD 1992 SC 590 rel.
  87. Order XLVI — Rules 4 & 6 — Petitioner herself filed review petition and the certificate — Maintainability of — Under rule 6 every review petition shall be filed by the advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed was made — The review petition may be drawn by any other advocate with special leave of the Court and the advocate who appeared in the original case, shall remain present in the Court unless his appearance is dispensed with — Under rule 4, advocate signing the application shall specify in brief the points upon which the prayer for review is based and shall add a certificate to the effect that consistently with law and practice of the Court, a review would be justifiable in the case—the certificate shall be in the form of reasoned opinion — there is wisdom behind it that review petition on legal question is maintainable on the basis of certificate in the form of reasoned opinion by the advocate who appeared in the original case — review dismissed. Mst.Kaneez Akhtar v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2015 SCR 727 (A) Ghulam Nabi & others vs. Muhammad Khan & others Civil Review No.31 of 2014, decided on 8.5.2015 &  Khurshid Ahmed & others vs Raja Javed Ayub Khan & others Crim. Review No. 2 of 2015, decided on 8.5.2015 rel.
  88. Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. is not applicable in the Supreme Court, the matter is governed by the Supreme Court Rules read with the relevant provisions contained in the Court-fees Act — Under rule 10 of Order XIV of the Supreme Court Rules, the appellants were bound to fix definite value for the purpose of the court-fee and pay the same according to part 2nd of 3rd Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules within 30 days after the direction of the Registrar — Appellants did not make up the deficiency in the court-fee and instead followed a contumacious attitude despite the directions of the Registrar — Appeals dismissed on this sole ground. Azad Govt. and another v. Khurshid Ahmad and another 2001 SCR 415 (C)
  89. O. XVII R. 4 — Ground taken in the petition or appeal which cannot be verified by reference to registered record shall be supported by an affidavit — The affidavit may be sworn by such Advocate on record stating that to the best of the deponent’s knowledge, information and belief the allegations contained in the petition are true — Held: In the present case the allegations of fact are supported by the record, therefore, preliminary objection has no bearing. Muhammad Siddique v. The State and another 2003 SCR 269 (A)
  90. O. XVII R. 4 — Affidavit in support of petition for leave to appeal or appeal can be sworn by an advocate stating that to the best of the deponent’s knowledge, information and belief the contents of petition are correct. Syed Irfan Hussain naqvi v. Al-Khair university & 4 others 2007 SCR 491 (F) 2003 SCR 269 rel.
  91. O. XVII rule 9 — Withdrawal of petitions — Although judgments were written — Two application for withdrawal of petition for leave to appeal were filed — Date was also fixed for judgment — Objections were called — Respondents objected the applications for withdrawal — U/O XVII r.9 — If the parties by a mutual consent agree to withdrawal of petition the same can be withdrawn without awarding any costs but if the other party opposes the withdrawal the same cannot be withdrawn without awarding costs — Withdrawal was allowed on payment of costs. Basharat Ahmad Shaikh v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & 8 others 2002 SCR 304 (A)
  92.  O. XIX rule 6 — Only such point can be allowed to be raised for decision which are pleaded in petition or concise statement — If a party wants to raise any new point which was not pleaded in the memorandum of petition, appeal or the concise statement, it may move an application for permission of the Court to raise such point — After permission such party shall be entitled to raise that point. Nasim and 2 others v. Ehtesab Bureau  AJ&K 2004 SCR 274 (C)
  93. O. XIX, R. 6 — Court can resolve such question which are raised by the party — Court cannot travel beyond the pleaded facts. — If any party has not raised any question of law which goes to the root of the case — Court may allow such point to be raised. Ehtesab Bureau AJ&K v. Muhammad Hanif 2004 SCR 284 (E)
  94. O. XXII deals with criminal appeals — The rules relate to section 42(11) of the Constitution — Rule 8, Order XXII — the words parties concerned are of vital importance — Word ‘parties’ clearly connotes the parties arrayed in the appeal and word ‘concerned’ connotes the party who is concerned or necessary —  The words are almost unanimous to interested parties in the case. Muhammad Riaz & 2 others v. The State 2006 SCR 170 (J) PLD 1962 Dacca 192 rel.
  95. O. XXII, R. 1 — The Court has jurisdiction and powers to pass an order and avoid non-suiting of the party on technical grounds. Barkat Ali v. Sultan Mehmood 2009 SCR 158 (A) 1992 SCR 94 rel.
  96. —Order XXIII—PLA in criminal proceedings—Limitation 30 days— against the judgment of the High Court a petition for leave to appeal in criminal proceedings was competent, which has to be filed within a period of 30 days. Muhammad Ayub v.State & others 2019 SCR 162 (A)
  97. —Order XXIII, Rule 1—Criminal Petition for Leave to appeal— Order of the Distt. & Sessions Judge/Anti-Terrorism Court—Post-arrest Bail in offences under section 302, 147, 148 and 149, APC, read with section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, refused and the order maintained by the High Court—The Petition for Leave to Appeal lies against the Judgment of the High Court and not the Criminal Revision. Raja Umair Arif  v. State & others  2019 SCR 207 (A)
  98.  Order XXIII, Rule 2—Criminal PLA—revision filed instead of PLA —under rule 2 of Order XXIII, the period of limitation for filing the petition for leave to appeal has been provided as thirty days from the judgment or order sought to be appealed from. Even if the revision petition is treated as petition for leave to appeal, the same is admittedly time-barred. In this scenario, the request for treating the revision petition as petition for leave to appeal cannot be considered. Raja Umair Arif  v. State & others  2019 SCR 207 (B)
  99. U/O. XXIII rule 1 — It is laid down that provisions applicable in respect of petition for leave to appeal in civil proceedings shall apply to criminal matters — U/O XIII rule 3 petition for leave to appeal is required to be accompanied by judgment and order sought to be appealed from along with grounds of appeal before the High Court. State v. Naseer Ahmed & another 2004 SCR 104 (C)
  100. O. XXIII R. 2 And O.XIII R. 1 — Both the provisions are abundantly clear — O.XIII relates to petitions for special leave to appeal in civil proceedings whereas O.XXIII relates to petitions for leave to appeal in criminal proceedings — A different period of limitation has been prescribed for lodging appeals in criminal matters and in civil matters — Contention of petitioner that due to jumbled reading of both the provisions a confusion arose in his mind that period prescribed for lodging the appeal even in criminal matters was sixty days is devoid of legal force and the same repelled — Petitioner is one of senior advocates of Supreme Court and one cannot expect from an advocate of his calibre that he would have fallen in some confusion. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi v. Director/Deputy Director Anti-corruption & 4 others 2001 SCR 272 (A)
  101. O. XXIII, R. 2 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S. 426 r/w Ss. 34, 467, 468/471, A.P.C., S. 11, Ehtesab Bureau Act — Impugned order of suspension of sentence and release on bail — Time-barred PLA — Condonation of delay — Government functionaries — Negligence — It was asserted that delay was bona fide which had been caused due to obtaining government sanction — Validity — It was enjoined upon appellant to file appeal on the same day when the government accorded approval or for the sake of arguments if the notification was not received in the office of Ehtesab Bureau, then the PLA could be filed in the next day — Delay of each and every day has to be explained by the party who seeks condonation of delay — Appellant had failed to work out a case for condonation of dealy — PLA/appeal was hopefully time-barred — Dismissed. TIME BARRED PLA — (Condonation of delay) In instant case, appeal filed against impugned order of suspension of sentence, being time-barred, was dismissed by Supreme Court. Ehtesab Bureau, AJK Dy. Chief Prosecutor, Headquarter,Muzaffarabad v. Ghulam Sarwar 2013 SCR 720 (B)
  102.  Order XXIII, Rule 2 — Petition for leave to appeal (criminal) — limitation 30 days — After a period of six months, the appeal cannot be treated as petition for leave to appeal. Abdul Ghafoor v. Naseer Ahmed & 16 others 2016 SCR 771 (C)
  103. O. XXIII, rules 5 & 7 — Confers powers and jurisdiction to this Court to pass any order in the interest of justice. Muhammad Riaz alias Kodu v. The State & another 2007 SCR 529 (A)
  104. O. XXXVIII R.12 — Provides that costs or charges are to be paid to a party by the Taxing Officer to whom the same have been awarded by the Court — Without awarding the costs or charges to a particular party, that party cannot submit a bill for payment of costs or charges — Contention that  petitioner has been defending the appeal, therefore, he should be paid the bill of costs is devoid of any legal force, as the Court while dismissing the appeal did not pass any order for awarding costs. Muhammad Suleman v. Azad Govt. and another 2003 SCR 237 (A)
  105. —Order XLII, rule 4, AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978— inherent powers of the Supreme Court— powers to mould relief– the Supreme Court while exercising powers vested in it, under the provisions of Order XLIII, rule 4, of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, has powers to mould and grant relief. Kamran Zaib v. Khadim Hussain & others  2022 SCR 1114 (F) 2015 SCR 906 rel.
  106. Order XLIII — Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal — Filing of concise statements was dispensed with — The case was disposed of. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi 2008 SCR 406 (B)
  107. O. XLIII — It is a settled proposition of law that parties cannot be allowed to re-open the matters which stood resolved in the light of their submissions and relevant record — The applicant wants us to sit in appeal over the judgment earlier given by this Court by invoking the inherent jurisdiction which in our view would not be proper. M. Hussain v. M. Afsar & 5 others 2003 SCR 120 (A)
  108. Order XLIII rules I and 2 — A Judge in chamber can send a cause relating to the abatement proceedings to the Deputy Registrar for recording of evidence. Mirza Muhammad Aslam Baig v. Dr. Saghir Iqbal 1995 SCR 216 (E)
  109. O. XLIII rules 4 & 5 — Inherent powers can be restored to if there is no specific provision in the statute book dealing with the situation. Azad Govt. and 5 others v. Sajjad Ali Gillani & another 2001 SCR 134 (D)
  110. O. XLIII R. 5. Inherent powers of the Supreme Court-Abatement in Supreme Court-where there are two parties and one of them dies — Appeal will abate-Question left open. Mirza Muhammad Aslam v. Dr. Saghir Iqbal 1992 SCR 94 (B)
  111. O. XLIII, r. 5 — If the Court comes to the conclusion that the points left unresolved need resolution the same may be done firstly by exercising the powers of review — Secondly the same may be done by exercising inherent powers. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Limited Mangla Mirpur v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 3 others 2004 SCR 158 (J)
  112. O. XLIII R.5 — Official respondents were directed to strictly follow the rules — Total posts available shall be bifurcated into two categories — Posts of direct quota shall be filled in after test and interview on the basis of merit and remaining posts out of serving candidates on the basis of merit-cum-seniority — If the appellants fulfil the criteria and the posts occupied by them also fall within the number of posts required to be filled in through promotion, then they shall not be disturbed. Shafqat Hayyat v. Muhammad Shahid Ashraf & 18 others 2005 SCR 57 (E)
  113.  O. XLIII, R. 5 — AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S.42 — Final determination of matter — Rehearing — In referred portion of judgment, Court in unambiguous terms held that Civil Courts have limited jurisdiction and admittedly cannot grant permanent injunction against all the share-holders who possess the land in an estate as well — It was further declared that the judgment shall be inter-party and not enforceable against in other share-holders in the shamilat — Review petition was also dismissed on ground that said judgment was perfectly legal and there was no error apparent on the face of record — Whether after dismissal of review petition, instant application under order XLIII, Rule 5 was maintainable or not? — Key proposition — Inherent powers of the Court — If the Court during the hearing of appeal feels necessary to pass any order which is in the interest of justice of if the order is passed order Rule 6, then Supreme Court may pass an order to meet the ends of justice — Petitioners had moved application for rehearing of appeal after dismissal of review petition whereby the Court had categorically held that there was no error apparent on the face of record and judgment was perfectly legal — Application dismissed. REHEARING — (Final determination of matter) Application for rehearing of appeal subsequent to dismissal of review was dismissed by Supreme Court. Barkat Ali another v. Sultan Mehmood and others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 56 (B)
  114. Inherent powers — Order XLIII, Rules 5 and 6 — Review — It would advance the ends of justice if Court exercises powers under Order XLIII, Riles 5 & 6 of the Supreme Court Rules — Held: As the law holding the field at the time of hearing the arguments in the appeal escaped our attention nor the same was brought to our notice by any of the learned counsel for the parties, therefore, by exercising inherent powers, set aside the judgment under review, and accept the review petition. Custodian Evacuee property v. Muhammad Ashraf & another 2010 SCR 361 (C)
  115. O. XLIII rule 6 — The application has been garbed as an application under O. XLIII rule 6 seeking exercise of inherent powers of the Court — The same is a review petition for all practical purposes — Even if the same is presumed an application under order XLIII rule 6, the same is not maintainable — The petitioners did have the remedy of review available which they did not choose to avail and exercise — They cannot therefore pray for exercise of inherent powers of the Court — Inherent powers are not to be invoked where other specific provisions are available. Al–Khair Trust of Pakistan and another v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (C)
  116. O. XLIII rules 4 & 5 — Powers available to the Court are not to be exercised in a routine but the same are available to the Court to do complete justice between the parties. Muhammad Said Khan and 32 others  v. Abdul Qayyum Khan 2000 SCR 594 (B)
  117. O. XLV — Review — Contention that the same Advocate is to argue the review who had earlier argued the appeal — Held: There is no cavil with this proposition of law — However, the Advocate who represented earlier, stands elevated as ad hoc Judge in Supreme Court — Hence rule is not attracted in the case — As he no longer remained available as Advocate. Raja Shahid Nawaz v. Liaqat Ali & 3 others 2009 SCR 88 (C)
  118. Order XLVI — Review petition admitted on two grounds:- (I) Whether an attorney can file an appeal particularly when a specific objection was raised and (ii) whether the High Court could dismiss a suit pending before a subordinate Court. Kh. Ghulam Qadir & another v. Muhammad Sharif and 18 others 1996 SCR 260 (A)
  119. O. XLVI — Review Jurisdiction — Review jurisdiction is not the same thing as the appellate jurisdiction — Points decided in an appeal cannot be re-agitated by filing a review. Muhammad Ishaque v. Hanifa Begum and 9 others 1997 SCR 185 (A)
  120. O. XLVI — Review — It is well settled practice of Supreme Court that it does not allow petitioner to argue a point which has not been included in review petition — AJK (Adaptation & Validation) Act 1978 came into force when review petition had already been filed in Supreme Court — Therefore, points argued by learned counsel do not find any mention in review petition — These points cannot be decided by Supreme Court in view of settled practice. M.C.B. Ltd. & another v. M.C.B. Employees Union and 16 others 2001 SCR 112 (A)
  121. — order XLVI — review petition — requirement of filing of review petition by same advocate who argued main appeal. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 485 (A)
  122. — order XLVI, rule 1 — the scope of review petition is limited to grounds mentioned in Order XLVI, rule 1 of the Rules, 1978. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 485(B)
  123. — order XLVI — review petition — reasons for requirement of filing review petition by same advocate who argued appeal — Held: Order XLVI, [rules 4 and 6] requires the same Advocate, who earlier appeared to argue the case, to draw up the review application and appear in support of it before the Court for certain reasons. It is because a review petition is not equivalent to a petition for leave to appeal or an appeal where the case is argued for the first time. The scope of review application is limited to the grounds mentioned in Order XLVI Rule 1 of the Rules 1978. The Advocate who had earlier argued the main case is perhaps the best person to evaluate whether the said grounds of review are attracted in the case. He being part of the hearing of the main case is fully aware of the proceedings that transpired in the Court leading to the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. He is the one who knows what was argued before the Court and what weighed with the Court in deciding the matter either way. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 435 (A)
  124. —Order XLVI—review petition—application for substitution of advocate—scope—requirement of drawing up of review petition and appearance of same counsel who appeared earlier—reason, elaborated—Order XLVI, [rules 4 and 6] requires the same Advocate, who earlier appeared to argue the case, to draw up the review application and appear in support of it before the Court for certain reasons. It is because a review petition is not equivalent to a petition for leave to appeal or an appeal where the case is argued for the first time. The scope of review application is limited to the grounds mentioned in Order XLVI Rule 1 of the Rules 1978. The Advocate who had earlier argued the main case is perhaps the best person to evaluate whether the grounds of review are attracted in the case. He being part of the hearing of the main case is fully aware of the proceedings that transpired in the Court leading to the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. He is the one who knows what was argued before the Court and what weighed with the Court in deciding the matter either way. Saeed Ahmed Chughtai & another vs Muhammad Saeed Khan & others 2024 SCR388 (A)
  125. Order XLVI Rule 1 — Review is allowed under this order on the grounds similar to those mentioned in O. XLVII R. 1 of C.P.C. Allah Ditta v. Mehrban 1993 SCR 18 (B)
  126. Order XLVI Rule 1 — Review competent only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record —  Points which are not pressed at the time of arguments, cannot be made basis for review. Allah Ditta v.  Abdul Ghafoor 1993 SCR 63 (A)
  127. Order XLVI-Rule 1 — No second review lies. Sr. Ali v. Karamat Ali Khan 1993 SCR 226 (A)
  128. Order XLVI Rule 1 — Review — Limitation — Grounds for — Question of limitation and the question of grounds on which the review would lie are two aspects of the matter which are independent of the question whether a successive review can be entertained. Sardar Ali & others v. Karamat Ali Khan & others 1993 SCR 226 (C)
  129. O. XLVI, r. 1 — Review — Jurisdiction of — This Court has the jurisdiction to review its judgment or order — Ground for review stated. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Limited Mangla Mirpur v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 3 others 2004 SCR 158 (H)
  130. Review — O. XLVI rule 1 — The Supreme Court may review its judgment or order in a civil proceeding on the grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of C.P.C. and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi v. Azad Govt. & Others 2008 SCR 25 (A)
  131. O. XLVI, rule I —  Scope and powers of review — Subject to the law and the practice of the Court, the Court may review its judgment or order in a civil proceeding on grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record — In criminal cases review can only be made if an error is apparent on the face of record but in civil cases the scope of review is broader. Haji Nazir Ahmad v. Raja Muhammad Saeed and 11 others 2010 SCR 231 (C)
  132. Order XLVI read with rule 1 of Order XLVII C.P.C. — Review — Its scope and jurisdiction — the Court is competent under order XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules to review its judgment on the grounds similar to rule 1 of Order XLVII of the C.P.C. — The Court can review its judgment if there is an error apparent on the face of record or some new evidence is brought on record. The petitioner failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record — She wants only fresh judgment by this Court, Held: which is not permissible. Syeda Tasneem Kazmi v. Education Deptt. & 8 others 2011 SCR 155 (B)
  133. O. XLVI — See Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 2. Safdar Ali Khan v. Azad Government of the State of J&K 2012 SCR 331 (A)
  134. O. XLVI — See Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R. 1.  Safdar Ali Khan v. Azad Government of the State of J&K 2012 SCR 331 (B)
  135. O. XLVI — See AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S.42-A. M. Farid Shahzad, Project Manager office of the Assistant Director Local Government, Muzaffarabad and another v. AJK Government through its Chief Secretary and 10 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 346 (B)
  136. —Order XLVI—review petition—scope of hearing—not automatic rather subject to conditions—the hearing of the review petition is not automatic but same is subject to various conditions– -practice of frivolous review petitions—Under Rule 6 of Order XLVI, except with special leave of the Court, no application for review shall be entertained unless it is drawn by the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed was made. Further held: in light of the abovereproduced rule, the ground pleaded for permission to file and argue the case is hardly a ground for grant of permission—the Supreme Court has always discouraged substitution of another counsel at the stage of haring of the Review Petition, definitely with a view that if such practice is adopted, there would be no end to litigation and replacement of original counsel by another counsel at the Review state. Saeed Ahmed Chughtai & another vs Muhammad Saeed Khan & others 2024 SCR 388 (F&G) Amjad Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad and others, PLD 2023 SC 22.; Muhammad Sabeel khan . Muhammad Ayoub Khan and others, 2015 SCR 1464; Muhammad Younas and others v. the State, PLD 2005 SC 93; Ghulam Rasul etc. v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Gujranwala etc. 1980 SCMR 962. Ref.
  137. O. XLVI, R.1 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42.Azad Govt. v. Neelum Floor Mills, Asgharabad, Muzaffarabad 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 725
  138. O. XLVI, rule 1 — review — its maintainability — judgment can only be reviewed if the Court finds that there is some error apparent on the face of judgment. The error must be manifest one. The scope and powers of this Court are limited while exercising the review jurisdiction in the terms of Order XLVI, rule 1, of Supreme Court Rules, 1978, as that every judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court is presumed to be considered solemn and final decision on all points arising out of the case. Munshi Khan 2 others v. M. Sadiq another 2014 SCR 1012 (E) 2001 SCMR 367 rel.
  139. Order XLVI, Rule 1 — competency of review petition — A preliminary objection raised — regarding the competency of review petition the same has been filed without complying with O.XLVI, Rule 1 of the AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978. Held: that the appeal was filed and argued by the petitioner himself.  The instant review petition is also drafted, signed and filed by the petitioner. Further held: that we do not find any substance in the preliminary objection regarding the competency of review petition, Thus the same stands overruled. Kamran Hafeez v. Gul Zaman Khan & others 2015 SCR 1505 (A)
  140.  Order XLVI, Rule 1 — Scope of — review before the Supreme Court is also very limited — under Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, the Supreme Court can review its judgment or order in civil proceedings on the grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the C.P.C. Dr. Munawar Ahmed  & 4 others v. M. Aslam & 23 others 2016 SCR 1014 (E)
  141. —Order XLVI, rule 2—Limitation for Review Petition—according to the statutory provision of Order XLVI, Rule 2 of AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978, the limitation prescribed for filing review petition is 30 days. Shafiq Shoq v. Sohail Nazir & others 2017 SCR 291 (A)
  142. O. XLVI, R.1 r/w O. LXVII, R. 1, C.P.C. — Review — Question of law — Scope — Point of competence of said respondent to cancel allotment in question had neither been attended to nor discussed in impugned judgment, thus, it was apparent on face of record of impugned judgment that a very vital point remained unattended and un-resolved — Such like situation justifies the review of judgment — Principle of law — Held: Said flaw in judgment under review fell within scope of an error or mistake apparent on face of record — Further held, High Court had neither touched merits of case nor recorded findings and writ petition was dismissed on sole point of laches — In such-like situations, the proper course was remanding the matter to High Court for passing a speaking judgment after attending and appreciating all the moot points raised in writ petition — Review petition was accepted by Supreme Court — Case remanded. REVIEW — (Question of law) Supreme Court had not attended to the question of competence of said respondent in impugned judgment to cancel allotment in question. Review petition was allowed. Ch. M. Latif, Retired Additional Chief Secretary (General) Advocate Supreme Court v. Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others 2013 SCR 742
  143. O. XLVI, R. 1, r/w O. XLVII, R.1, C.P.C. — Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 BK, S. 20-A — General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 6(A) — Suit for possession on basis of right of prior purchase — Issues — Trial Court decreed suit — Appeal of petitioner was partly accepted by first Appellate Court on ground that vendee-defendant had improved his statutes during pendency of suit and he had become a co-sharer in said khewat — High Court accepted second appeal and appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by Supreme Court — Impugned judgment under review — Contention was that said cases were referred but not considered in the impugned judgment — Validity — Cases referred had been considered and it was held that the proposition  resolved in the said cases dealt with amendment of S. 14 of the Act, where while repealing the old section new class of pre-emptors had been incorporated in the light of right of the rule of prior purchase under Islam — Case was considered but that was not found relevant for resolving point in issue — A party cannot be allowed to reagree the whole case in guise of review petition — Review petition dismissed. REVIEW — (Exercise of power) In pre-emption matter, review petition was dismissed by Supreme Court. Muhammad Saleem Khan v. Mst. Muqarab Jan and 2 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 777 (D)
  144. Even otherwise the Court is of the view that arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner during preliminary hearing of the review petition do not fall within the parameters of review jurisdiction which is exercisable by Supreme Court under section 42-D read with Order XLVI (3) of the Supreme Court Rules. M.C.B. Ltd. v. M.C.B. Employees Union and 2001 SCR 112 (B)
  145. O. XLVI rule 4 — The review petition not accompanied by the requisite certificate — The provision is mandatory in nature non-compliance — Renders the review petition as incompetent. Al–Khair Trust of Pakistan v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (B)
  146. O. XLVI rule 4 — Review — Not accompanied by requisite certificate — Effect of — The provisions of aforesaid rules being mandatory in nature — Held: Non-compliance thereof renders the review petition incompetent and not maintainable. Khadim Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property & 6 others 2004 SCR 255 (A)
  147. O. XLVI rule 4 — The required certificate has not been appended with the review petition — The review is incompetent — The provision of the rules being mandatory in nature — Non-compliance renders the review petition as incompetent and not maintainable. Khadim Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, AJ&K 2004 SCR 61 (A)
  148. Order XLVI, Rule 4 — certificate of the counsel who signed the review petition — wisdom behind the rule — O. XLVI, Rule 4 — specifically provides that the advocate signing the application shall specify in brief the points upon which the prayer for review is based and shall add a certificate to the effect that consistently with the law and practice of the Court, a review would be justifiable in the case.  The certificate shall be in the form of a reasoned opinion.  Held: The review petition cannot be filed without a certificate of the counsel who signed the review petition. Further held:  The wisdom behind the rule is clear that review petition on legal question is maintainable on the basis of certificate in the form of reasoned opinion by the advocate who appeared in the original case. Muhammad Sabeel v. Muhammad Ayoub Khan& others  2015 SCR 1464 (B) Ghulam Nabi and others vs. Muhammad Khan and others (Civil Review No. 31 of 2014, decided on 8.5.2015) & Khurshid Ahmed & others vs. Raja Javaid Ayub Khan & others (Criminal Review  No. 2   of   2015, decided on 8.5.2015) rel.
  149. — order XLVI, rule 4 — specifically provides that the advocate signing the application shall specify in brief the points upon which the prayer for review is based and shall add a certificate to the effect that consistently with the law and practice of the Court, a review would be justifiable in the case. The certificate shall be in the form of reasoned opinion but the perusal of the filed reveals that there is no certificate of the original counsel attached to the file, hence, the application for permission to draft/file the review petition is not maintainable. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 485 (F) 2015 SCR 1464 & Crim. Review No. 2/2015, decided on 08.05.2015. rel
  150. Order XLVI, Rule 6 — Specifically prohibits an Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case of which the judgment sought to be reviewed, to draw a review petition unless Court grants him special leave to do so. Abdul Latif Shah v. Abdul Majeed and 27 others 2000 SCR 271 (A)
  151. Order XLVI rule 6 — Review petition — Non-compliance of rule 6 — Registrar of the Court didn’t entertain the petition on its presentation — Appeal under Order V Rules 2 and 3 before Judge in Chamber. Held: Under Order XLVI Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, the application for review is not maintainable if not drawn by the Advocate who originally argued the appeal. Further held: Tthe Advocate who argued the appeal can only draw and present the review petition — Advocate was not permitted by this Court prior to drawing and presenting the application, therefore, the petition was not validity presented — Appeal dismissed. Abdul Ghani v. Muhammad Saeed & 6 others 2011 SCR 151 (A)
  152. Order XLVI, Rule 6 — drafting and filing of review petition — It is provided that every review petition shall be filed by the advocate who appeared in the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, was made.  The rule further provides that review petition may be drawn by an advocate other than the advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed with special leave of the Court. Muhammad Sabeel v. Muhammad Ayoub Khan& others 2015 SCR 1464 (A)
  153. O.XLVI, Rule.6—mandatory provision—non-compliance renders review petition not maintainable— the review petition drawn by the advocate other than the one who appeared at hearing of order/judgment impugned in review—without having prior special permission of the Supreme Court—review petition not maintainable on this sole ground—liable to be dismissed. Review petition dismissed by the Supreme Court on that sole ground. Sain Khan vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima & others 2018 SCR 1018 (A)
  154. —Order XLVI, Rule.6—Prohibition to draw review petition by an advocate other than the one who appeared in cause sought to be reviewed —except with special leave of the Court—under the provisions of Order XLVI, Rule. 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, except with the special leave of the Court no petition shall be drawn by any advocate other than the advocate who appeared at the time of hearing of the case in which the judgment or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Azhar Mehboob  (Review) vs AJ&K Government & others 2018 SCR 1143 (A)
  155. —Order XLVI, Rule.6 —mandatory rule—non-compliance renders review petition not maintainable—under rule 6, there is prohibition to draw review petition by an advocate other than the one who appeared in cause sought to be reviewed—except with special leave of the Court—application for special leave to draw review petition filed next day after filing of the review petition just to cover-up the legal requirement—held that the review petition has been drafted without complying with the mandatory requirement of Order XLVI, Rule 6 of AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978,  which is not maintainable. Azhar Mehboob  (Review) vs AJ&K Government & others 2018 SCR 1143 (B)
  156. —Order XLVI, Rule 6—–review—strict compliance of Supreme Court Rules is duty of an advocate—it is mandatory for an advocate who argued the appeal, to be present at the time of hearing of review petition unless his presence is dispensed with by the Court. Waseem Rafique  v. Secretary Forests & others  2019 SCR 450  (A)
  157. — order XLVI, rule 6 — permission to substitute counsel – — on basis of sufficient ground — discretion of court to grant permission or decline substitution of counsel, not arbitrary or mechanical — Held: It is true that the requirement of “sufficient ground” for granting the special leave is not expressly stated in Rule 6, but this does not mean that the discretion of the Court to grant or decline the special leave is arbitrary or is mechanical on filing of an application in this regard by a petitioner. This discretion, like all other discretions, is to be exercised judiciously for valid reasons by considering the circumstances of the case. The special leave to substitute a counsel in a review petition is to be granted only when appearance of the earlier counsel is not possible due to some unavoidable circumstances, such as the original counsel is dead or unable to appear before the Court due to some mental or physical disability but that too is subject to the permission to the Court. The practice of filing review applications by changing the counsel without justifiable reasons or unavoidable circumstances, by the parties as well as by the Advocates representing them is condemnable. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 435 (C)
  158. — order XLVI, rule 6 — exercise of review jurisdiction — subject to certain conditions — bar of substitution of counsel for review petition — Held: The perusal of Order XLVI reveals that hearing of the review petition is not automatic but same is subject to various conditions. Under Rule 6 of Order XLVI, except with special leave of the Court, no application for review shall be entertained unless it is drawn by the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed was made. In the light of the above-reproduced rule, the ground pleaded for permission to file and argue the case is hardly a ground for grant of permission. This Court has always discouraged substitution of another counsel at the stage of hearing of the Review Petition, definitely with a view that if such practice is adopted, there would be no end to litigation and replacement of original counsel by another counsel at the Review stage. Civil miscellaneous petition for substitution of counsel for review petition dismissed Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 485 (D) PLD 2023 SC 22, 2015 SCR 1464, PLD 2005 SC 93, 1980 SCMR 962 & AIR 1997 SC 1005) rel
  159. — order XLVI, rule 6 — review jurisdiction — subject to certain conditions — bar on substitution of counsel who appeared in original case for filing of review petition — discretion of Court – — discretion to be exercised judiciously for valid reasons in exceptional cases. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 485 (D)
  160. — order XLVI, rule 6 — substitution of counsel in review petition is only on unavoidable grounds — Held: the special leave to substitute a counsel in a review petition is to be granted only when appearance of the earlier counsel is not possible due to some unavoidable circumstances, such as the original counsel is dead or unable to appear before the Court due to some mental or physical disability but that too is subject to the permission of the Court. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 485 (E) PLD 2023 SC 22 & 2015 SCR 1464 rel.
  161. —Order XLVI, rule (6)—review petition—substitution of counsel—special leave of the Court— for drawing of review petition by other advocate—discretion to grant special leave is not arbitrary or mechanical—It is true that the requirement of “sufficient ground” for granting the special leave is not expressly stated in Rule 6, but this does not mean that the discretion of the Court to grant or decline the special leave is arbitrary or is mechanical on filing of an application in this regard by a petitioner. Saeed Ahmed Chughtai & another vs Muhammad Saeed Khan & others  2024 SCR 388 (C)
  162.  —Order XLVI, rule (6)—review petition—drawing of review petition by counsel other than one who appeared earlier— special leave or permission to—only on unavoidable grounds— Held: The special leave to substitute a counsel in a review petition is to be granted only when appearance of the earlier counsel is not possible due to some unavoidable circumstances, such as the original counsel is dead or unable to appear before the Court due to some mental or physical disability but that too is subject to the permission to the Court. Saeed Ahmed Chughtai & another vs Muhammad Saeed Khan & others 2024 SCR 388 (D) —Order XLVI, rule (6)—review petition—substitution of counsel—practice of substitution of counsel in review petitions depreciated by the Court—The practice of filing of review applications by changing the counsel without justifiable reasons or unavoidable circumstances, by the partis as well as the Advocates representing them is condemnable. Saeed Ahmed Chughtai & another vs Muhammad Saeed Khan & others 2024 SCR388(E)
  163. —Order XLVI, rule 7—Security for costs of the opposite party—depositing of —mandatory— non-compliance —review not maintainable—in rule 7 of Order XLVI, of the AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978, it is expressly mentioned that no application for review in civil proceedings shall be entertained, unless the party seeking review furnishes cash security amounting to Rs. 1,000/- for the costs of the opposite party. As the petitioner failed till last date, to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement, thus, according to the provisions of rule 7, read with rule 2 of Order XLVI of AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978, the review petition cannot be entertained. Shafiq Shoq v. Sohail Nazir & others 2017 SCR 291 (B)
  164. — order XLVI, rule 8 — same advocate and same bench for review adjudication, requisite in interest of justice — requirement of fixing of review petition before the bench of the Court, which delivered the judgment — referred requirement of Rules, also augment requirement to file review by same advocate who argued appeal— Held: It is also for the same reason that the review application is to be fixed before the same Bench that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, under Rule 8 of Order XLVI of the Rules. It is not hard to understand that the same Advocate and the same Bench can best appreciate the grounds of review. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 485 (B)
  165. — order XLVI, rule 8 — requirement of filing of review petition by same advocate — reasons determined — the advocate who appeared in original case is the best person to evaluate whether grounds for review are attracted — Likewise, the review petition is fixed before the bench which heard and disposed of the appeal — Same advocate and same bench can best appreciate the grounds of review. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 485 (C)
  166. —Order XLVI, rule (8), AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978- –review petition—fixation before and hearing of review petition by same bench which passed the judgment/order, sought to be reviewed. Same advocate and same bench can best appreciated the grounds of review. Saeed Ahmed Chughtai & another vs Muhammad Saeed Khan & others 2024 SCR 388 (B)
  167.  Order XLVI, Rule 9 — rightly lays down that power of review shall not be invoked repeatedly by the parties to a cause — If the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law or fact while disposing of a case — Held: the review cannot be obtained on the ground that the Court has taken an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration is possible. Further held: Review also cannot be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if such material was available at the time of hearing of appeal or petition but not produced. A ground not urged or raised at the time of hearing of petition or appeal cannot be allowed to be raised in review proceedings. Further held: Only such error in the judgment/order would justify review, which is self-evident, found floating on the surface or discoverable without much deliberation and have a material bearing on the final result of the case. Further held: Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. Dr. Munawar Ahmed & 4 others v. Muhammad Aslam & 23 others 2016 SCR 1014 (G) PLD 1997 SC 865, 1998 SCMR 908, PLD 1966 (W.P) Lahore 53, AIR 2000 SC 1650, 2014 SCR 564&2015 SCR 474 rel.
  168. —order XLVI—Code of civil procedure—orders XLVII–Review—scope of—the Court may review its judgment in civil proceeding on the ground similar to those mentioned in order XLVII, rule 1, CPC and in criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record. Azad Govt. & 8 others V. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan & 46 others 2020 SCR 591(B).
  169. —Order XLVI—review jurisdiction—Supreme Court may review its judgment or order in civil proceedings on the grounds akin to theose mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. Kamran Ali & 3 others Versus Abdul Qudoos & 9 others 2021 SCR 501 (B)
  170. —Order XLVI, Rule 1—Review—Scope of—review is not permissible on the plea that a party is not satisfied with judgment– –It may also be observed here that the scope of review before the Supreme Court is also very limited and under Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, the Supreme Court can review its judgment or order in civil proceedings on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record or any other grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C., but the review is not permissible on the ground that a party is not satisfied from the judgment AJ&K Council &others vs Raja Gul Muhammad & others 2018 SCR 579  (A)
  171. Supreme Court has power to review its judgment or order in civil proceedings on ground familiar to those mentioned in Order XLVII r.1 C.P.C. and in criminal case on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sr. M. Iqbal Khan 2008 SCR 256 (B)
  172. O. XLVII, Rule. 11 — Cr.PC. — S. 386 — application of initiating contempt of Court proceedings —  frivolous  litigations — penal consequences — petitioner a habitual litigant — file baseless case — mislead the Court and waste the time of the Court — while dismissing application petitioner awarded the costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited within week — Directed for issuance of warrant for levy of the amount by attachment and sale of the immovable property u/s  386, Cr. P.C. in case of failure in depositing the costs. Habib–ur Rehman v. Sr.Adnan Khursheed 2015 SCR  922 (A)
  173. Cross objections are not envisaged under the Supreme Court Rules and the same are incompetent. Deputy Collector Excise v. Abdul Hamid  1993 SCR 363 (H)
  174. Review — The scope of review petition under the Supreme Court Rules is admittedly limited — A review petition is not maintainable on those points which have been decided one way or the other. It is only the defect or mistake apparent on the face of record or the points urged but not resolved which can attract the jurisdiction of this Court in a review petition. Ch. Qurban v. Sardar Abdul Latif KhanChughtai and another 1996 SCR 317 (A)
  175. Review — Scope of review is very limited under the Supreme Court Rules — Any issue which stands already resolved cannot be made a subject of review even if the same had been resolved illegally. Muhammad Yousaf Sani v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 1996 SCR 370 (A)
  176. Conditional power of attorney — Counsel and client — 6th schedule item 3 — Does not visualise the acceptance of a conditional power of attorney — It is indeed correct that the matter of payment of fee is between the client and his counsel but in order to avoid the further complication, which may arise in a particular case, such a conditional power of attorney is not permissible under law or the Supreme Court Rules. Azad Govt. and 8 others v. Kashmir Polytex Ltd 2001 SCR 140 (B)
  177. Under the Supreme Court Rules a petition for leave to appeal beyond time is liable to be dismissed summarily in absence of sufficient cause — No application for condonation of delay has been moved — No reason having been furnished — Petition liable to be dismissed. Development Authority Muzaffarabad And 4 others v. Iqbal Hussain Nizami 2002 SCR 121 (B)
  178. Limitation — Under the Supreme Court Rules a period of thirty days is fixed for review — The instant applications filed after nine months & four months barred by limitation — Merit dismissal. Al–Khair Trust of Pakistan  v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (A)
  179. The procedure contained in the Supreme Court Rules and also in the High Court Rules is that the contesting party should either contest the case personally or through his/her attorney or an Advocate. Abdul Waheed Butt v. Excise & Taxation Officer and 3 others 2003 SCR 298 (A)
  180. Copies appended with the PLA were not obtained by the petitioner — The Deputy Accountant General was neither party before the Service Tribunal nor he is petitioner before this Court. Copies should have been acquired in the name of present petitioners — Held: The petitioners have not complied with the Supreme Court Rules, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accountant General & another v. Shahid Mehmood & another 2005 SCR 255 (A)
  181. Applicant is in death cell for the last about 3 years — His appeal in this Court could not finally be decided during this period — Held: It is by now settled that once an appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court, the execution of death sentence stands suspended with the direction to all the concerned and this Court can pass any order in the interest of justice — Held further: The applicant shall be shifted from death cell to judicial lockup by the concerned authority. Muhammad Riaz alias Kodu v. The State & another 2007 SCR 529 (B)
  182. Contention that judgment reported as 2003 SCR 204 is not in line with different findings of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan and that this Court should review, modify or clarify the same — Held: The powers of this Court in respect of interpreting the judgment or recording clarification of judgment are regulated by Supreme Court Rules which can be adhered to when petitions for the purpose are filed in accordance with the procedure laid down by said Rules. M. Mushtaq v. Muhammad Arshad and 6 others 2008 SCR 166 (C) 
  183. —mandatory documents—non-filing of grounds of appeal with memorandum of Petition for Leave to Appeal—effect of–Contention that office had not raised any objection to that effect at filing of PLA—Held: the grounds of appeal is a mandatory document which is to be appended with the memo of petition for leave to appeal in view of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, and same cannot be dispensed with. It is the duty of party or counsel to place this document on record at the time of filing of the petition for leave to appeal notwithstanding with the objection of the office. PLA declared as not competent. Muhammad Aziz Khan v. Muhammad Sadiq & 21 others 2020 SCR 767 (A)
  184. — اپیل — فرمان حکومت مجریہ 25 ستمبر 2018ء ۔۔۔ برائے واپسی اپیل دائر شدہ منجانب پبلک سروس کمیشن ۔۔۔ قرار دیا گیا کہ قواعد عدالت العظمیٰ کے تحت اپیل سے دستبرداری کا حق صرف اپیلانٹ کو حاصل ہے نہ کہ کسی دوسرے فریق کو ۔۔۔ اپیل پبلک سروس کمیشن نے دائر کی لہذا اپیل واپس لینے کا اختیار بھی پبلک سروس کمیشن کو ہے۔(ت)Azad Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Mazhar Ahmed and others 2018 SCR 948  
error: Content is protected !!