' Mr. A.K. Dogar Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, had appeared on 19-12-1994 after about half an hour of the announcement of the short order which was made in the presence of Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate who had appeared with Mr. A.K. Dogar on 18-12-1994 during the course of arguments. Mr. A.K. Dogar, Advocate had addressed the Court under the assumption that even the short order was not signed. He was informed that the short order was dictated, typed and signed but the detailed judgment which was being typed in my Chamber by my Personal Assistant was still to be read by me and to be signed. He demanded that the short order be got inspected by him and he was informed that I was sitting in the Court room and he could come at 10.30 A.M. i,e, tea break and inspect the file. There was no reason to assume for the learned counsel that the short order was not signed. The fact was that the detailed judgment was still to be signed. He appeared today before the break and thereafter the file was requisitioned.
2. He submitted that the judgment would only assume its legal character when it is written, signed and pronounced. As the detailed judgment was not signed till the time he had put in appearance in Court on 19-12-1994, he submitted that notice be issued to the other side, the judgment be recalled and the parties be re-heard on the point that they may agitate. On his query regarding the basis of dismissal of the writ petition, which he made with the courtesy that a lawayer extends, he was informed that it was section 9 of Act XII of 1992 which was considered as a rider to sections 4 and 5 of Act XII of 1992.
3. At that particular time I was hearing another matter and I had informed the learned counsel that he could come after 10.30 A.M. And may have a look at the file but he requested that his submissions be heard on the point on 20-12-1994.
4. Today the file has been requisitioned and is before me.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on "Muhammad Ibrahim v. D.C."(1971 SCM R 63).
He quoted from the said judgment, written by Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J. (as he then was) and drew my attention to the following observation:- "It is well-established that the learned Judges in the High Court can 1 change their decisions before putting their signatures to the judgment."
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on "Muhammad Amin v. Muhammad Ramzan" (PLD 1988 Lahore 331) and has submitted that as the detailed judgment was not typed, signed and pronounced at the time of his coming to the Court after receipt of information about the fate of writ petition from Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate on 19-12-1994, the same, thus, was liable to be recalled. It has also been contended that in the circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the above two citations, notice be issued to the other party and arguments of both the parties be heard and judgment be recalled.
5. The learned counsel submits that he wanted to address mainly on the implication of section 9 of Act XII 1992 which was, according to him, not a rider clause to the preceding sections of the said Act and that the blanket of immunity and secrecy, as provided under sections 4 and 5 of Act supra, was absolute.
6. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observation of the Court in allowing him to address the Court on the point involved, on the subsequent day, meant, according to him, that the oral order passed earlier had since been recalled and that he was thus entitled to argue as above and that today he had appeared in Court to argue the point.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has gone by the assumption that short order was not dictated that signed by me or conversely the same was recalled on his submissions made on 19- 12-1994 and for that reason alone he still seeks time to argue the point that the order stood recalled or not, and seeks adjournment for two days.
8. As the short order was signed and announced, the judgment was also signed by me on 19-12- 1994 and the file was sent to the office, I feel, in the circumstances, that no lis is pending before me and, therefore, unless an application for review be made, I have become focus officio.
9. With these remarks the matter stands resolved, so far as this Court is concerned. The file be sent back to the office. The, order was dictated and announce in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The above may be annexed with the judgment passed on 19-12-1994.