Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4484 = 2026 SLD 4484 = PLJ 2026 144
Federal Constitution Court of Pakistan
C.R.P. No. 463 of 2024 in C.M.A. 167/2023 in Const. P. NIL of 2023
Presented By: Amin-Ud-Din Khan, C.J. and Ali Baqar Najafi JUDGE
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr. ASC and Mr. Shahazada Mazhar, ASC for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Shamshad, Addl. AG and Mr. Asif Munir, DD Legal, C&W for
Respondent. Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. AGP for the Federation. On Court’s Notice. Mr. Nadeem Azam, ASC and Mr. Arsalan Zafar, DD (L), MDA for the MDA. Date of hearing: 17.02.2026.

Syeda NASREEN ZOHRA (deceased) through L.Rs--Petitioners

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Communication & Works Department, Lahore and others--Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 188, 175-E(3) , 184(3)

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 188--Supreme Court Rules, 1980 O.XXVI Arts. 175-E(3) & 184(3)--Review Petition--Maintainability--Original Constitutional Jurisdiction--Public Importance--Enforcement of Fundamental Rights--Curative Review--Doctrine of Finality--Horizontal Appeal--Final Judgment of Supreme Court--Office Objection--Federal Constitutional Court held that a review petition could not be used to reopen or indirectly appeal a final judgment of Supreme Court through Articles 184(3) or 175E(3), as Constitution recognizes finality of judicial decisions and Article 188 provided only limited review jurisdiction--Attempt is, in substance, to challenge a final judicial determination rendered by apex Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction--Constitutional scheme, however, did not contemplate a horizontal appeal against a final judgment of Supreme Court through invocation of its original jurisdiction--Article 188 expressly provided for review of judgments of Supreme Court--Review jurisdiction was a limited corrective jurisdiction after final adjudication, and finality of judgments remained indispensable to administration of justice--Grievance articulated was not one that implicated enforcement of fundamental rights of public at large; rather, it was a continuation of a private dispute between legal representatives of a landowner and Provincial Government--Invocation of review petition against an order sustaining office objection while dismissing C.M. Appeal, which had held that petition filed under Article 184(3) was not competent, therefore, appeared to be an attempt by petitioner to reopen a concluded controversy under guise of constitutional enforcement-- Constitution did not envisage perpetual litigation--Judicial discipline demanded that there must be a terminus to adjudication, and office objection was grounded in constitutional principle--Petition dismissed. [Pp. 150 & 151] C, D, F & G Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 184(3)--Public Importance Matter--27th Amendment--Article 184(3), prior to 27th Amendment, in its settled jurisprudential understanding, conferred original jurisdiction upon Supreme Court in matters of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register