Sheikh FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ADIL and others
This matter arises from a review petition filed under Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, seeking review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court that had dismissed a civil appeal in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question addressed is whether contentions already raised and considered in the original judgment can be re-agitated within the narrow confines of review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that review jurisdiction is strictly confined to correcting patent errors or mistakes floating on the face of the record that would otherwise perpetuate illegality or cause injustice, and that points previously considered cannot be re-agitated merely because another view is possible or the conclusion is alleged to be wrong. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, laying down the principle that the scope of review does not extend to re-hearing or re-arguing matters already exhaustively dealt with unless a failure to consider an important question of law is demonstrated.
- Can points already raised and considered before the Court be re-agitated in review jurisdiction?
- What are the grounds permissible for invoking the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- Does the possibility of another view on the matter constitute a valid ground to review a judgment?
- Article 188, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Order XXVI Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules 1980
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules; 1980 has been filed seeking review of the judgment, dated 10-4-2007 of this Court, whereby the Civil Appeal bearing No,93 of 2003, arising out of a pre-emption matter, filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The contentions raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition have already been exhaustively dealt with in the judgment under review. This is a settled proposition of law that the points already raised and considered before the Court, cannot be re-agitated in review jurisdiction which is confined to the extent of patent error or a mistake floating on the face of record which, if not corrected may perpetuate illegality and cause injustice. The mere fact that another view of the matter was possible or the conclusion drawn in the judgment was wrong, would not be a valid ground to review the judgment unless it is shown that the Court has failed to consider an important question of law. In view thereof, we are not inclined to take any exception to the judgment passed by this Court and consequently, the review petition stands dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.