ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that a second or curative review was not maintainable under Article 188 of the Constitution since this provision envisages only one-time exercise of this jurisdiction, whether made in a review petition or suo motu in respect of any judgement.

The review jurisdiction, conferred on the SC by Article 188, is with regard to any judgement pronounced by the court under the preceding articles i.e. Article 184 in its original jurisdiction or under Article 185 in its appellate jurisdiction, observed Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in his additional note on the judgement issued on Saturday.

Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, a three-judge bench, also consisting of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, had taken up an appeal of one Khalid Mehmood against the Registrar’s decision to return his second review petition in a case regarding some auction matter held in 1997.

Though the CJP observed second review petition was not maintainable, Justice Shah explained that Article 188 envisaged only one-time exercise of this jurisdiction.

Unless the judgement passed on the first review is recalled, the judgement or order passed in the original or appellate jurisdiction cannot be reviewed.

Such an interpretation of the words of any judgement or any order in Article 188, if adopted, would be against the legislative intent and the public interest that lies in putting an end to litigation and ensuring finality of the judgements and orders.

Justice Shah observed that the SC’s institution officer had rightly returned the second review petition as being not entertainable. The present appeal is meritless and is therefore dismissed, the note said.

Justice Mazhar explained that review by its nature was neither commensurate to a right of appeal or opportunity of rehearing merely on the ground that one party or the other felt dissatisfied with the court decision, nor can a judgement or order be reviewed merely because a different view could have been taken.

It is clearly provided under sub-rule 9, Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 that, after the final disposal of the first application for review, no subsequent application for review shall lie to the court and consequently it shall not be entertained by the registry, Justice Mazhar said.

Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2023