AHMAD vs ABDUL AZIZ
This miscellaneous appeal was filed against an order of the Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, who returned an application filed against an order passed in a civil review application. The Assistant Registrar had returned the application on the ground that under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, no subsequent application for review lies after the final disposal of the first review application. The appellant contended that the Assistant Registrar erred in assuming a second review application was filed and argued that the application instead invoked the inherent powers of the Court. The Supreme Court held that the application was indeed in the nature of a second review application, as it sought the re-examination of a judgment passed by a seven-member Bench of the Court which had already disposed of the first review petition. The Court affirmed that the Assistant Registrar's order conformed with the rules, and further found no sufficient grounds to exercise its inherent powers to review the impugned order, thereby dismissing the appeal.
- Whether a second application for review can be entertained by the Registry after the final disposal of the first review application?
- Can the inherent powers of the Supreme Court be invoked to seek the re-examination of a judgment under the guise of a miscellaneous application after a review petition has already been decided?
- Does an application seeking the re-examination of a judgment passed in a review petition constitute a second review application?
- Order XXVI Rule 9, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
1. NAIMUDDIN, J.--This is a miscellaneous appeal from the order of the Assistant Registrar of this Court, dated 5th November, 1989, whereby the Assistant Registrar, returned the application against the order passed on Civil Review Application No.80-R of 1988 stating as follows:-- "It is laid down in rule 9, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, that after the final disposal of the first application for review no subsequent application shall lie to the Court and consequently shall not be entertained by the Registry. Therefore, this application is returned to the AOR." .
2. It is submitted that learned Assistant Registrar's order is based on wrong assumption of fact that a second review application was filed in the case. It is also submitted that the petitioner invoked the inherent power of this Court by the application on which the impugned order was passed. However, these submissions are not correct. The application was really in the nature of second review application as the prayer in the miscellaneous application was for re--examining the judgment of the Court, dated 4th September, 1989, which was passed by a Bench consisting of the Hon'ble then Chief Justice and six other Hon'ble Judges, whereby the Review Petition No.80-R of 1988, was allowed and the judgment, dated 30th October, 1988, was set aside and the appeal filed by the vendee in the Supreme Court (CA. 290/1988) was dismissed leaving intact the decision of the High Court. The order of the Assistant Registrar is correct and is in conformity with the Rules. We, therefore, dismiss this miscellaneous appeal. Even otherwise, we find no sufficient ground for exercising inherent power for reviewing the impugned order.
Cited by 1 case
- Khalid Mehmood vs Chaklala Cantonment Board through its CEO and others 2023 SCP 213, 2023 SCMR 1843