' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner in review petition has contended that in view of the provisions of section 362 of the Mahtomedi Law under the Chapter of Guardianship of Person and Property, the requirement for alienation of property of a minor by his legal guardian are subject to the conditions (1) where he can obtain 'double its value; (2) where the minor has no other property and the same is necessary for his maintenance; (3) where there are debts of the deceased, and no other means of paying them; (4) where there are legacies to be paid, and no other means of paying them; (5) where the expenes exceed the income of the property; (6) where the property is falling into decay; and (7) when the property has been usurped, and the guardian has reason to fear that there is no chance of fair restitution, and according to him these conditions have not been fulfilled. When he was confronted with para 6 of the judgment under review where most of the conditions as required under the aforesaid provisions of law have already been mentioned and which was made the ground for decision of the appeal, the learned counsel for the A petitioner has submitted that in support of such findings there is no evidence but this plea is totally bereft of the facts and circumstances of the case. We do not see any ground for the grant of review of the judgment therefore, the review petition is dismissed.
2. The learned counsel in C.M.A. No. 1963 of 2002 which was filed on 3-10-2002, during the pendency of appeal and before the announcement of the judgment on 25-11-2004 and has contended that the petitioner counsel was not heard in that application and who was Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court, representing the applicant in C.M.A. No. 1963 of 2002. Though presence of the counsel Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court, has been marked but no reference was made to any of his arguments presumably that he did not address the Court in support of that application. Today, it was stated by one of the counsel for the applicants that he (Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha) had come to the Court and then left the same without disclosing that he was also representing the petitioners in C.M.A. No. 1963 of 2002 on that day and thus testifying his (Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha) non-addressing the Court about the aforesaid application. Since the main appeal has already been decided and this application which was pending in this Court before the decision of the appeal generally do not remain pending after decision of the main case. So now at this stage i.e., the pendency of the review petition this application cannot be allowed to be pressed.
3. The petitioner has also moved two applications, first under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 agitating the same grievance, referred-to above; and the second under section 12(2), C.P.C. These applications were not entertained by the Registrar, against which order the petitioner filed C.M. Appeal No.34 of 2006 which was fixed in Chamber on 18-1-2007 and order was passed thereon that the aforesaid application be placed on record along with the original Civil Appeal No.663 of 2001 for hearing and disposal according to law while no order was passed on the other application and the order of the Registrar stood final. When the case was taken up, Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Malooka, Advocate Supreme Court, representing the applicant in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Has only stated that Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, is busy before Bench No.
1. On his (Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court) appearance he contended that he is appearing for the petitioner in the Review Petition No.331 of 2005 and has stated that though he was not the counsel at the time of hearing the appeal but it was Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court in the main appeal and on this elevation as Judge of the Islamabad High Court, he was allowed to file it. He has also stated that he (Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court) has joined the legal profession again. Since Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court has joined the profession then it would be he who under the rules would be allowed to represent the petitioner in the review petition.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant in C.M. Nos. 3018 of 2007 and 3019 of 2007 does not press these applications, which are dismissed as not pressed.
5. During hearing of the case Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, has left the Court and at the conclusion of the hearing of the case, the order was announced of dismissal of the review petition. After sufficient time when the Court was rising for interval, he reached and stated at the bar that he had to attend hearing of the other case before another Bench and stated that though Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court, has to address the Court in his presence. Since Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, was not the counsel in the main appeal and Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court, is very much available and when he has not appeared in the review petition then another counsel cannot be permitted to represent the petitioner in the review petitions and that on this ground that the review petition was dismissed.