SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Review Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, CJ 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez 
 
 
Civil Review Petition No.142 of 2015 
[For review of Judgment dated 08.01.2015 
passed by this Court, in Constitution Petition 
No.104 of 2011 etc] 
IN 
Constitution Petition No.104 of 2011 
 
 
Engineers Study Forum (Registered) & another 
 Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
  
The Federation of Pakistan, etc 
 Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
 
: Mr. A.K. Dogar, Sr. ASC 
Mian Ghulam Hussain, AOR (Absent) 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
 
: N.R. 
Date of Hearing 
: 18.07.2016 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
GULZAR AHMED, J.—By this Civil Review Petition, the petitioners 
namely Engineers Study Forum (Regd) and another have sought 
review of the judgment dated 08.01.2015 passed in C.P.No.32/1996, 
45/1998, 37/2000, 44/2002, 39/2005, 104/2011, Civil Petition 
No.887/2008 and Crl. Org. Petition No.91/2006. This Review petition 
has been filed only by the petitioners of C.P.No.104/2011.  
2. 
On 18.7.2016 this Review Petition had come up for hearing 
before the Court.  Learned Sr. ASC for the review petitioners was 
heard and that after having heard the learned Sr. ASC for review 
petitioners at sufficient length, the Court passed the order of reserving 
the judgment and asked the learned Sr. ASC for petitioners to file 
written submissions, which the learned Sr. ASC for the review 
petitioners has filed. He has also filed a CMA No.5135/2016 praying for 
grant of adequate opportunity of hearing.  
3. 
We have considered the submissions of Mr. A.K.Dogar, 
learned Sr. ASC for the review petitioners.  
CRP No.142 Of 2015.Docx 
 
P a g e  | - 2 - 
4. 
We would first take up CMA No.5135 of 2016 of review 
petitioners in which their counsel purports to seek opportunity of 
adequate hearing as he has asserted in the application that his 90% 
arguments remained unheard by the Court and has referred to the 
case of Imranullah v. The Crown [PLD 1954 FC 123]. The case cited is 
altogether distinguishable from the features of present case as it 
related to the hearing of Criminal Appeal before the High Court and it 
was complained by the counsel for appellant that he was not given 
opportunity of hearing by the High Court. Their lordships in the Federal 
Court gave hearing to the counsel for the appellant and ultimately 
dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment of High Court. The 
present case before us is under review jurisdiction of this Court and 
looking at the limited scope of review jurisdiction the Court has given 
to the review petitioners adequate opportunity of hearing and though 
the Court has reserved the judgment but has also allowed the 
petitioners’ counsel to give written submissions which opportunity of 
filing of written submissions has been availed and thus there is hardly 
any justification or cause left for the review petitioners to claim grant 
of adequate hearing through their counsel.  The Court is not bound to 
give indefinite hearing to the counsel appearing for a party before it 
nor the counsel can claim privilege of hearing him by the Court to his 
heartfelt satisfaction. It is the function of Court to regulate hearing of 
the matters fixed before it and at the same time to ensure that it has 
given adequate time to the counsel for hearing in a given case.    What 
is the adequate time for hearing of a given case, it is not for the 
counsel appearing for a party before the Court to decide rather it is 
more a function of the Court.  There is no concept in the Court of law 
of allowing a counsel for a party to hear infinitum or to his heartfelt 
satisfaction nor any rule in this regard was cited before us.  It is true 
that while hearing a case before it, the Court has to keep into 
consideration well enshrined and celebrated principle of Audi Alteram 
Partem (no man should be condemned unheard) and the Court was 
well informed of this principle while hearing a matter before it.  The 
counsel for the review petitioners has been given adequate time and 
opportunity of hearing and his written submissions (which the Court 
has allowed him to file) have also been taken on record and 
considered by the Court.  The CMA No.5135 of 2016 is, therefore, 
dismissed. 
CRP No.142 Of 2015.Docx 
 
P a g e  | - 3 - 
5. 
In respect of the main review petition, learned Sr. ASC for 
the review petitioners has contended that the constitution petition filed 
by the petitioners was for the enforcement of fundamental rights as 
enshrined in Articles 9 and 157 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973.  In the written submissions, the learned Sr. ASC 
has urged the grounds of error on the face of record, giving effect to 
the decisions of CCI dated 16.09.1991 and 09.05.1998, the judgment 
of Lahore High Court reported in PLD 2013 Lahore 659, exercise of 
jurisdiction by the Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, 
involvement of political question and misreading of judgment by this 
Court in the case of Dossani Traders (Pvt.) Limited, the learned Sr. 
ASC has also relied upon some case law. 
6. 
We have given our due consideration to the arguments and 
submissions of the learned Sr. ASC for the review petitioners.  We may 
note that this Court has power to review its own judgment under 
Article 188 of the Constitution and such power is to be exercised under 
Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 which adopts the 
provision of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC providing for the grounds of 
review.  The grounds available for review are of errors in the 
judgment/order which would justify the review and which are self- 
evident found floating on the surface of record and has material 
bearing on the final result of the case.  The review jurisdiction does 
not allow re-hearing of a decided cases more so when the Court has 
given conscious and deliberate decision on the point of law as well as 
of fact while disposing of the constitution petition before it.  Similarly, 
the grounds not urged or raised at the time of hearing of constitution 
petition cannot be allowed to be raised in the review proceeding.  We 
have noted that the arguments advanced by the learned Sr. ASC for 
the review petitioners and the written submissions filed by him do not 
figure-in as a ground provided for review of the judgment in that the 
Court has already considered and examined them while passing the 
judgment under review by giving elaborate and conscious judgment 
and it is also worth-noting here that the Court at the time of handing 
over the judgment under review was fully conscious of its implications 
and had in mind all the issues which are raised by the learned Sr. ASC 
for the review petitioners.  Reference in this regard is made to the 
cases of Mian Rafiq Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit & Commerce 
International (Overseas) Ltd. and another [PLD 1997 Supreme Court 
CRP No.142 Of 2015.Docx 
 
P a g e  | - 4 - 
865], Majid Mahmood v. Muhammad Shafi [2008 SCMR 554] and Mst. 
Ghulam Fatima through L.Rs. and others v. Farzand and others [2008 
SCMR 1590].    The Review Petition accordingly is not maintainable, 
which is dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
Bench-I 
Islamabad 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Judge 
*Hashmi* 
Judge 
 
 
 
Announced in open Court on  
24.08.2016 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
