Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4490 = 2026 SLD 4490 = 2026 PLJ 511
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.R.Ps. No. 4 to 33 of 2026 in C.As. No. 1116 to 1145 of 2025
Presented By: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb JUDGE
Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ayaz, Special Attorney for all Petitioners (in all cases). Mr. Haris Azmat, ASC for
Respondents (in all cases). Date of hearing: 19.5.2026.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) (WEST), LAHORE and others--Petitioners

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD RIZWAN and others--Respondents

Law: IMPORT POLICY ORDER, 2022.

Section: 181

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 188

Import Policy Order, 2022-- ----Appendix-E--S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 (Clause f)--Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), S. 181--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 188--Supreme Court Rules, 2025, O.XXVI--Review Jurisdiction--Over-age imported vehicles--Outright confiscation--Redemption fine--Per incuriam--Review Jurisdiction--Scope and limitations of review--Error apparent on face of record--Re-hearing of case--Statutory interpretation--Binding precedent--Judicial precedent--No inconsistency in earlier judgments--Review not maintainable--Re-agitation of decided issues--It was noted that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 188 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules, 2025, was a limited one, circumscribed by grounds analogous to those contained in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--Said jurisdiction was to be exercised with utmost caution and restraint and did not permit Court to sit in appeal over its own judgment or to rehear and re-argue matter already adjudicated--Scope of review was confined to correction of a patent and self-evident error apparent on face of record, which did not require elaborate reasoning to be established--Where Court had consciously and deliberately taken a view on a question of law or fact, same could not be reopened in review merely on account of dissatisfaction with result or repetition of earlier submissions--Judgment under review, having consciously examined relevant statutory scheme and applied correct legal principles, could not be reopened in review on basis of such non-binding and per incuriam orders, and contention raised in this regard was, therefore, without substance--Review petition dismissed.       [Pp. 513, 514 & 515] A & D Doctrine of per incuriam-- ----Reliance placed by petitioners on certain earlier orders of this Court was wholly misconceived, for reason that said orders had failed to withstand scrutiny on touchstone of doctrine of per incuriam, as had been correctly held in judgment under…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register