Syed AKBAR ALI PUKHARI vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN
The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court of Pakistan's order dated 28-10-1980, which had dismissed his civil appeal against the High Court's dismissal of his constitutional petition. The petitioner raised several grounds, including the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem due to the non-provision of a detailed dismissal order, procedural violations by the Inquiry Officer in recording witness statements, and the failure to supply the inquiry report and serve a second show-cause notice. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was attempting to seek a re-hearing of the arguments already addressed and decided in the civil appeal, without satisfying the jurisdictional requirements necessary for maintaining a review petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, reaffirming that a review petition cannot be utilized as a platform for re-arguing a case to obtain a different decision on merits.
- Can a party seek a review of a judgment solely to re-argue the merits of the case and obtain a different decision?
- What jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied to maintain a review petition before the Supreme Court?
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner seeks review of order dated 28-10-1980 whereby his civil appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court was dismissed.
2. The petitioner has taken up all the material grounds which were taken up by him during the course of the hearing of the appeal and have been dealt with and decided in the judgment whose review is now sought, For example, it is contended that by not supplying a copy of the detail dismissal order the principle of audi alteram parten was violated; that the direction of the competent authority to the Inquiry Officer that the witnesses should be examined and their statements recorded in the presence of the petitioner was violated; that the failure to supply the inquiry report and serve the second show-cause notice vitiated the result and that on facts the petitioner was not in any manner involved in the commission of the misconduct alleged against him.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that what he is seeking is a re- hearing of the arguments addressed by him at the time of hearing and disposal of the civil appeal and wants a different decision, from the one which has been given without satisfying the jurisdictional requirement necessary for maintaining a review petition. This the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be permitted to do. The petition is, therefore, 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.
Cited by 3 cases
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III, Corporate Regional Tax Office, Tax 2023 SCP 150, 2023 PTD 964, 2023 SCMR 1011
- Mst. Bisma Noureen vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry 2023 CLC 110
- Toba Saeed through her Father vs Chairman Admission Committee 2021 MLD 520