Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SCMR 279
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-10-11
Parties: Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, through its authorized person and others. vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through Special Secretary, Islamabad and others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 2024-10-11, officially reported as 2025 SCMR 279. In this matter between Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, through its authorized person and others. and Election Commission of Pakistan, through Special Secretary, Islamabad and others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025 SCMR 279
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Musarrat Hilali, Qazi Faez Isa (C.J) Title:Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, through its authorized person and others. vs
Election Commission of Pakistan, through Special Secretary, Islamabad and others Case No.: Civil Review Petition No. 14 of 2024 In Civil Petition No. 42 of 2024 Date of Judgment:2024-10-11 Reported As: 2024 SCP 356, 2025 SCMR 279 Result: Order Accordingly Judgment
ORDER Review of the short order of this Court, announced on 13 January 2024, and of its detailed reasons, which were issued on 25 January 2024 is sought through this review petition. 2. An 'Application for Adjournment' has been submitted by Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record on the ground that, 'Mr. Hamid Khan, Senior ASC, has pressing family engagement at Lahore on 11.10.2024'. The nature of the pressing family engagement is not disclosed. The learned AOR is also not in attendance. Learned counsel must know that merely filing an adjournment application does not mean that the case will be adjourned. 3. The petitioners were represented by Advocates of the Supreme Court ('ASCs') a couple of whom themselves are ASCs, respectively, Senior Advocate Mr. Hamid Khan, and ASCs Messrs Syed Ali Zafar, Gohar Ali Khan, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Niazullah Khan Niazi. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua was the Advocate-on-Record earlier and in the review petition it is Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad. Therefore, if Senior Advocate Mr. Hamid Khan, as stated, had some pressing family engagement any of the other learned ASCs could have attended and proceeded with the case. Moreover, section 6 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 now enables engagement of other counsel in a review petition, which was not permissible earlier. 4. In the circumstances, we are not persuaded to adjourn the case, however, in the interest of justice and only by way of indulgence we do so but make it clear that no further request for adjournment will be entertained, and we expect that the case to proceed on the next date.
---
## Page 2
5. In view of the fact that two Members of this Bench will not be available at Islamabad next week, we adjourn this case to Monday, 21 October 2024. Copy of this order be sent to the learned ASCs, learned AORs and to the review petitioners.