Supreme Court Rejects Review Petition Filed Through New Counsel Without Exceptional Circumstances.
سپریم کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ: نیا وکیل بغیر غیرمعمولی وجہ نظرثانی دائر نہیں کر سکتا
(Amjad Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad – Order dated 24-10-2022)
🔷 تعارف
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے ایک اہم اصول واضح کرتے ہوئے کہا ہے کہ نظرثانی کی درخواست وہی وکیل دائر کر سکتا ہے جو اصل مقدمہ میں عدالت کے روبرو پیش ہوا ہو۔ بغیر کسی غیرمعمولی یا ناگزیر وجوہات کے نیا وکیل نظرثانی درخواست دائر نہیں کر سکتا۔ یہ فیصلہ درخواست گزار امجد حسین کی طرف سے دائر کی گئی درخواستوں CMA 3610/2022 وغیرہ میں دیا گیا، جو کہ سابقہ سول اپیلوں 1256 اور 1257/2014 میں عدالت کے فیصلے کے خلاف دائر کی گئی تھیں۔
🔹 پس منظر
درخواست گزار نے نظرثانی کی درخواستیں نئے وکیل کے ذریعے دائر کیں کیونکہ اصل مقدمے میں پیش ہونے والے وکیل نے نظرثانی دائر کرنے سے انکار کر دیا تھا۔ اس بنیاد پر عدالت سے اجازت مانگی گئی کہ نیا وکیل درخواست دائر کرے اور اس کی پیروی کرے۔
🔹 عدالت کا مؤقف
بینچ (جس میں جسٹس سید منصور علی شاہ اور جسٹس عائشہ اے ملک شامل تھے) نے واضح کیا:
سپریم کورٹ رولز 1980 کا Order XXVI Rule 6 یہ تقاضا کرتا ہے کہ نظرثانی کی درخواست وہی وکیل دائر کرے جو اصل مقدمے کی سماعت میں پیش ہوا ہو۔
صرف عدالت کی خصوصی اجازت سے کسی نئے وکیل کو اجازت دی جا سکتی ہے، اور یہ اجازت صرف غیرمعمولی اور ناقابلِ تردید وجوہات پر ہی ممکن ہے۔
🔹 محض انکار کافی نہیں
عدالت نے کہا کہ اگر وکیل نظرثانی دائر کرنے سے انکار کرے تو اس کا مطلب یہ ہو سکتا ہے کہ وہ اسے بے بنیاد یا غیرضروری سمجھتا ہے، اور یہ بات خود اس اصول کی حفاظت کے لیے کافی ہے۔ محض یہ کہنا کہ وکیل نے انکار کر دیا، کوئی قانونی یا لازمی وجہ نہیں۔
🔹 غلط استعمال کی روک تھام
عدالت نے خبردار کیا کہ نظرثانی کی درخواستیں معمول بن چکی ہیں اور بعض وکلا بغیر سوچے سمجھے سرٹیفکیٹ جاری کرتے ہیں۔ یہ رویہ عدالتی نظام کو متاثر کرتا ہے۔ لہٰذا ایسے بے بنیاد ریویو پیٹیشنز کو مسترد کیا جائے گا۔
🔹 فیصلے کا نتیجہ
چونکہ کوئی ناگزیر وجہ پیش نہیں کی گئی، اور اصل وکیل نے غالباً اخلاقی اور قانونی ذمہ داری کے تحت انکار کیا، اس لیے عدالت نے نظرثانی کی درخواستیں ناقابل سماعت قرار دے کر خارج کر دیں۔
🔸 اہم قانونی نکات
1. نظرثانی صرف وہی وکیل دائر کرے جو پہلے مقدمے میں پیش ہوا ہو۔
2. نیا وکیل صرف غیرمعمولی حالات میں ہی نظرثانی دائر کر سکتا ہے۔
3. وکیل کا محض انکار، قانونی بنیاد نہیں۔
4. بے بنیاد نظرثانی درخواستوں کا سلسلہ قابلِ مذمت ہے۔
5. وکیل کو سرٹیفکیٹ جاری کرتے وقت قانون اور ضمیر کا خیال رکھنا لازم ہے۔
Must read judgement
SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Review Jurisdiction)
Bench-V:
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik
C.M.A.3610/2022 IN C.R.P.NIL/2022 IN C.A.1256/2014 and
C.M.A.3611/2022 IN C.R.P.NIL/2022 IN C.A.1257/2014
(Against the judgment of this Court dated 25.02.2022,
passed in Civil Appeals No.1256 and 1257 of 2014)
Amjad Hussain (In both cases)
.…. Petitioner
Versus
Nazir Ahmad & others (In both cases)
….. Respondents
For the petitioner:
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR.
(In both cases)
For the respondents:
N.R.
Date of hearing:
24.10.2022
ORDER
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.- These applications have been
filed under Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980
(“Rules”), seeking special leave of the Court for entertaining the review
petitions drawn by an Advocate other than that who appeared at the
hearing of the cases in which the judgment sought to be reviewed was
made as well as seeking permission to be heard in support of the said
review petitions. Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Rules is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:
6. Except with the 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. Nor shall any other
Advocate, except such Advocate, be heard in support of the
application for review, unless the Court has dispensed with the
requirement aforesaid.
2.
The only reasons given in the applications is that learned
counsel who earlier appeared for the petitioner, namely, Syed Najam-ulHassan Kazmi, ASC, has refused to file the review petitions against the
impugned judgment dated 25.02.2022. We are afraid, the reason given is
utterly insufficient to grant the leave sought.
3.
Order XXVI of the Rules deals with the practice and
procedure of this Court in exercising its review jurisdiction. It lays
special emphasis on the role and obligation of the Advocate who is to
CMA 3610/2022, etc.
2
draw up the application for review and appear in support of it before the
Court. Under Rule 6 an application for review has to be drawn by the
Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment
or order, sought to be reviewed, was made. Under Rule 4, the Advocate
who draws up the review application has not only to specify the points
upon which the prayer for review is based but he has also to add his
certificate to the effect that the review would be justifiable in accordance
with the law and practice of the Court. Rule 5 provides that in case the
Court comes to the conclusion that the review application filed was
vexatious or frivolous, the Advocate or the Advocate on Record drawing
the application shall render himself liable to disciplinary action, while
Rule 7 provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless
party seeking review furnishes cash security of Rs. 10,000/- which shall
stand forfeited if the review petition is dismissed or shall be paid to the
opposite-party, if the review petition is contested. Rule 6, thus, has to be
seen and applied in the overall scheme of Order XXVI of the Rules.
4.
Order XXVI of the Rules 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 the equivalent of a petition for leave to appeal or
an appeal where the case is argued for the first time. It is not the
rehearing of the same matter. The scope of review application is limited
to the grounds mentioned in Order XXVI Rule 1 of the Rules. 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 to 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. 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 XXVI of the Rules. It is not
hard to see that the same Advocate and the same Bench can best
appreciate the grounds of review. A review argued by a new Advocate
before a new Bench would inevitably amount to rehearing of the main
case and going beyond the scope of review under the law. 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
CMA 3610/2022, etc.
3
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, as held
by a full bench of this Court in Dr. Mubashir Hassan case1, only when
appearance of the earlier counsel is not possible due to some
unavoidable circumstances. 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.2
5.
In this particular case, the ground pleaded for grant of the
special leave is that the earlier counsel has refused to file the review
petitions, and no other reason has been mentioned as to why he has so
refused or what are the circumstances that prevented him to draft the
review petition, file the requisite certificate under Rule 4 and appear in
support of the review petitions. The stated refusal on his part to file the
review petitions prima facie suggests that he believes that there is no
sufficient ground for review and he being a responsible Senior Advocate
of this Court has refused to file the frivolous review petitions, having
regard to the observations made by this Court in Muhammad Khaliq v.
Gul Afzal3 in the following terms:
6. We have noted that review petitions are increasingly being filed as a
matter of routine. As a consequence, the certificate required under Order
XXVI, Rules 4 and 5 is given as a matter of course by the learned
Advocates without application of mind. Statistics provided by the Office
show that 1324 review petitions were filed in 2013 and 2014. We also
note that a certificate has been given in the present case by the learned
counsel to the effect that "according to law and established practice of
this Hon'ble Court it is a fit case for review ...". Far from being a fit case
for review, we find that the law and established practice of this Court
demonstrates that this is a frivolous petition where a certificate in terms
of Order XXVI, Rule 4 has been filed by the learned counsel in a
mechanical and unthinking manner. Such practice is to be deprecated in
the interest both of the litigant and the legal system and also to further
the Constitutional imperative of ensuring expeditious and inexpensive
justice.
If it is the reason of his refusal, as it appears to be, then this is precisely
the mischief what Rule 6 addresses. There is no other ground agitated
before us for the change of the counsel that would make out a case for
grant of special leave to substitute the counsel for drafting, filing and
1
Federation of Pakistan v. Dr. Mubashir Hassan PLD 2011 SC 674 (several previous cases are referred to
in this case); M/s. National Electric Co. v. Khalid Siddique PLD 2005 SC 405 (several previous cases are
also referred to in this case).
2
See Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Raju Reddiar AIR 1997 SC 1005.
3
PLD 2015 SC 24
CMA 3610/2022, etc.
4
arguing the review petitions. Therefore, we see no valid reason or
unavoidable circumstance to grant the special leave prayed for. Thus, the
applications made under Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Rules are rejected
and consequently, the review petitions are not entertained.
Islamabad,
24th October, 2022.
Approved for reporting
Iqbal
Judge
Judg