IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, CJ (in Chambers) 
 
C.M.A. 2012 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2021 
 
The President of Pakistan and others  
 
Versus 
Justice Qazi Faez Isa 
 
C.M. APPEAL 81 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 296 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 17 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan and others  
 
Versus 
Justice Qazi Faez Isa 
 
C.M.A. 2013 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2021 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Sindh High Court Bar Association through its President  
 
C.M. APPEAL 82 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 297 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 24 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Sindh High Court Bar Association through its President  
 
C.M.A. 2014 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2021 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Mrs. Sarina Isa Wife of Qazi Faez Isa  
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
2
 
C.M. APPEAL 83 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 298 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 17 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Mrs. Sarina Isa wife of Qazi Faez Isa 
 
 
C.M.A. 2015 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2021 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Supreme Court Bar Association, Islamabad through its President and 
another  
 
C.M. APPEAL 84 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 299 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 19 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Supreme Court Bar Association, Islamabad through its President and 
another  
 
 
C.M.A. 2016 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2021 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Muhammad Asif Reki, President Quetta Bar Association, Quetta and 
another  
 
C.M. APPEAL 85 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 300 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 23 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Muhammad Asif Reki, President Quetta Bar Association, Quetta and 
another  
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
3
C.M.A. 2017 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2021 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Shahnawaz Ismail, Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and 
another  
 
C.M. APPEAL 86 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 301 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 32 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Shahnawaz Ismail, Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and 
another  
 
C.M.A. 2018 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2021 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Balochistan Bar Council, through Vice Chairman Balochistan High Court, 
Quetta and others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 87 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 308 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 25 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Balochistan Bar Council, through Vice Chairman, Balochistan High Court, 
Quetta and others    
 
C.M.A. 2019 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2021 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) through its Secretary General, 
Islamabad and others  
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
4
C.M. APPEAL 88 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 309 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 34 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
   
Versus 
 
Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) through its Secretary General, 
Islamabad and others  
 
C.M.A. 2020 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2021 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
Versus 
 
Pakistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman, Islamabad and others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 89 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 509 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 21 OF 2019 
 
The President of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, Islamabad 
and others   
   
Versus 
 
Pakistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman, Islamabad and others  
 
 
C.M.A. 2021 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
 
Versus 
Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 90 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 296 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 17 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
   
Versus 
 
Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others  
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
5
C.M.A. 2022 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
Versus 
Sindh High Court Bar Association through its President  
 
C.M. APPEAL 91 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 297 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 24 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
Versus 
 
Sindh High Court Bar Association through its President  
 
C.M.A. 2023 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
 
Versus 
 
Mrs. Sarina Isa wife of Qazi Faez Isa and others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 92 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 298 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 17 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
Versus 
Mrs. Sarina Isa wife of Qazi Faez Isa and others  
 
C.M.A. 2024 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
Versus 
Supreme Court Bar Association, Islamabad through its President and 
others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 93 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 299 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 19 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
   
Versus 
 
Supreme Court Bar Association, Islamabad through its President and 
others  
 
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
6
C.M.A. 2025 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
 
Versus 
 
Muhammad Asif Reki President Quetta Bar Association and others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 94 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 300 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 23 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
   
Versus 
 
Muhammad Asif Reki President Quetta Bar Association and others  
 
C.M.A. 2026 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
Versus 
Shahnawaz Ismail Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 95 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 301 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 32 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
Versus 
Shahnawaz Ismail Vice Chairman, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore and others  
 
C.M.A. 2027 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
Versus 
 
Balochistan Bar Council through its Chairman, Quetta and others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 96 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 308 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 25 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
   
Versus 
 
Balochistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman, Quetta and others  
 
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
7
C.M.A. 2028 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
 
Versus 
 
Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) through its Secretary General, 
Islamabad and others  
 
 
C.M. APPEAL 97 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 309 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 34 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
   
Versus 
 
Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) through its Secretary General, 
Islamabad and others  
 
C.M.A. 2029 OF 2023  
IN  
C.M. APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2021 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through it Chairman  
 
Versus 
 
Pakistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman and Chairman Executive, 
Islamabad and others  
 
C.M. APPEAL 98 OF 2021  
IN  
C.R.P. NO. 509 OF 2020  
IN CONST. P. 21 OF 2019 
 
Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman  
   
Versus 
 
Pakistan Bar Council through its Vice Chairman and Chairman Executive, 
Islamabad and others  
 
 
 
 
PRAYER :- 
“that CMAs may kindly be accepted and the appellants may 
be allowed to withdraw the C.M. Appeals and Curative 
Review, in the interest of justice.”  
  
 
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
8
 
DATE OF 
HEARING 
ORDER OF HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE 
10.04.2023 
 
For the applicant(s)/appellant(s) 
Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, Attorney General for Pakistan  
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. AG 
 
 
 
 
 
. . . . . . . . 
  
 Through these 18 Civil Misc. Applications the 
appellants seek the withdrawal of their curative review 
petitions filed against the Supreme Court’s (“the Court”) 
decision dated 26.04.2021 given in its review jurisdiction in 
Justice Qazi Faez Isa Vs. President of Pakistan (PLD 2022 
SC 119) (“Subject Judgment”).  
2.  
The facts giving rise to the present withdrawal 
applications are that by a majority of 6-4 the Court vide the 
Subject Judgment allowed the review petitions filed by Mr. 
Justice Qazi Faez Isa and other parties against the decision 
of the Court dated 19.06.2020 delivered in Justice Qazi 
Faez Isa Vs. President of Pakistan (PLD 2021 SC 1) 
(“original judgment”). As a result, certain directions issued 
to the Federal Board of Revenue and the Supreme Judicial 
Council by the original judgment were recalled. Aggrieved by 
the Subject Judgment, the appellants preferred curative 
review petitions before the Court on 25.05.2021.  
3.  
The Institution Officer raised certain objections on the 
filing of the curative review petitions. The main objection 
urged was that the purpose behind seeking a curative review 
is to avail a second review which is not entertainable under 
Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 
(“1980 Rules”). In response to the objections, the appellants 
filed chamber appeals under Order V, Rule 3 of the 1980 
Rules. During the pendency of these appeals on 31.03.2023 
the President, whilst acting on the advice of the Prime 
Minister, granted his authorisation to the concerned 
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
9
ASC/AOR for the withdrawal of the curative review petitions 
filed by the appellants. These withdrawal applications are 
fixed for decision in Chambers today. 
4.  
The learned Attorney General for Pakistan and the 
learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan entered 
appearance on behalf of the appellants. The rationale behind 
withdrawing the curative review petitions is reflected in the 
Federal Cabinet’s decision dated 27.07.2022. Essentially the 
legal points pressed are: 
i. 
That the 1980 Rules prohibit the filing of a second 
review petition after the final disposal of the first 
review petition; and 
ii. 
That the curative review petitions have been filed on 
the strength of a judgment delivered by the Indian 
Supreme Court (“SCI”) in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. 
Ashok Hurra (AIR 2002 SC 1771) wherein the SCI 
had explicitly recognised its right to ‘re-consider its 
judgments in exercise of its inherent power.’ However, 
no pronouncement to such effect has been made by 
the Court. Hence, the concept of a curative review 
petition is alien to the laws and jurisprudence of 
Pakistan and therefore these petitions being not 
maintainable are liable to be withdrawn. 
5. 
I have heard the learned Attorney General and have 
also perused the record. The bar on filing a second review 
petition is declared in the 1980 Rules in the following words: 
“ORDER XXVI 
REVIEW 
... 
9. After the final disposal of the first application 
for review no subsequent application for review 
shall lie to the Court and consequently shall 
not be entertained by the Registry.” 
This bar has also been affirmed by a 5 Member Bench of the 
Court in Khalid Iqbal Vs. Mirza Khan (PLD 2015 SC 50) at 
para 12. Therefore, under the current scheme of the law the 
appellants appear to be precluded from filing a review 
against the Subject Judgment because it has finally 
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
10
disposed of the review petitions filed against the original 
judgment. 
6.  
Be that as it may, the Court in the past has of its own 
motion corrected its decisions wherein wrong principles of 
law have been laid down. In this regard the dictum of the 
Court in the case of Khalid Iqbal (supra) is illustrative: 
“13. This, however, does not mean that the 
jurisdiction of this Court is barred by any 
restriction placed by the Constitution; there is 
no Article in the Constitution which imposes 
any restriction or bar on this Court to revisit its 
earlier decision or even to depart from them, 
nor the doctrine of stare decisis will come in its 
way so long as revisiting of the judgment is 
warranted, in view of the significant impact on 
the fundamental rights of citizens or in the 
interest of public good. This issue was fully 
comprehended and answered in the case titled 
Regarding 
pensionary 
benefits 
of 
the 
Judges of Superior Courts from the Date of 
their respective retirements, irrespective of 
their length of service as such Judges (PLD 
2013 SC 829 at page 993). The relevant 
portions are reproduced herein below:--…  
 
4. … Therefore, if any law which has been 
invalidly pronounced and declared by this 
Court, which in particular is based upon 
ignorance of any provisions of the Constitution, 
and/or 
is 
founded on gross 
and 
grave 
misinterpretation thereof; the provisions of the 
relevant law have been ignored, misread and 
misapplied; the law already enunciated and 
settled by this Court on a specific subject, has 
not been taken into account, all this, inter alia, 
shall constitute a given judgment(s) as per 
incuriam… Therefore, if a judgment or a 
decision of this Court which is found to be per 
incuriam… it shall be the duty of this Court to 
correct such wrong verdict and to set the law 
right. And the Court should not shun from 
such a duty… 
 
On perusal of the paragraphs referred to 
hereinabove, we can safely reach a conclusion 
that this Court has absolute powers to re-visit, 
to review and or to set aside its earlier 
judgments/orders by invoking its Suo Motu 
Jurisdiction under Articles 184(3), 187 or 188 
of the Constitution. The Powers of this Court to 
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under the 
above referred Articles of the Constitution are 
not depend[e]nt upon an application of a 
party.” 
(emphasis supplied) 
What becomes apparent from the above-quoted passages is 
that our jurisprudence recognises the Court’s Suo Motu 
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and Article 188 read with 
Article 187 of the Constitution to re-visit, review or set aside 
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
11
its judgments/orders that have finally disposed of the first 
review petitions. However, such jurisdiction has so far not 
been invoked by the Court in the present matter.  
7.  
Insofar, as the principle of curative review petitions is 
concerned, it is not disputed by the appellants that the 
existence of this jurisdiction has hitherto not been 
considered by the Court. In fact, all the judgments cited by 
them in support of their curative review petitions reiterate 
what has been held above: that a second review is barred by 
law and that the Court alone is empowered, if so inclined, to 
re-visit, 
review 
or 
set 
aside 
any 
of 
its 
previous 
judgments/orders.  
8.  
Further a study of the Indian law on curative review 
reveals that it is a remedy altogether distinct from the Suo 
Motu exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. Whereas curative 
review has no standing in our jurisprudence the availability 
of Suo Motu review has long been accepted by the Court, 
albeit in the limited circumstances of doing complete justice 
under Article 184(3) and/or Article 188 read with Article 187 
of the Constitution. It is of course clear that both types of 
judicial interventions, curative review and Suo Motu review, 
possess a similar purpose i.e., to correct a fundamental 
error in a previous judgment/order. However, the key 
difference, inter alia, between the two jurisdictions lies 
mainly in their mode and manner of invocation. Order 
XLVIII, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 mandates 
that curative review must be invoked by a party: 
“Order XLVIII 
CURATIVE PETITION 
… 
2. (1) The petitioner, in the curative petition, 
shall 
aver 
specifically 
that 
the 
grounds 
mentioned therein had been taken in the 
Review Petition and that it was dismissed by 
circulation.” 
(emphasis supplied) 
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
12
On the other hand, Suo Motu review can only be invoked by 
the Court in its discretion, including on the information 
received from an aggrieved or concerned party. Therefore, 
the lack of the proceedings being initiated by a party is 
inconsequential to the Court’s exercise of Suo Motu 
jurisdiction. That does not appear to be the case for curative 
review petitions filed in the SCI.  
9.  
In the present case no Hon’ble Member of the Bench 
that delivered the Subject Judgment (nor any other Judge of 
the Court) has so far considered it necessary to re-visit, 
review or set aside that judgment on the ground that it has 
had a significant impact on the Fundamental Rights of 
citizens; or that it is in the interest of the public good; or 
that it is per incuriam. Consequently, in the absence of such 
a judicial view and the lack of an enabling jurisdiction that 
allows an aggrieved or concerned party to file a second 
review, the appellants curative review petitions appear to be 
not maintainable.  
10.  
In the above circumstances the ordinary course of 
action would have been to refer the matter to the Court for a 
conclusive determination on its maintainability. However, 
the appellants are now seeking the withdrawal of their 
curative review petitions. This right of the appellants to 
withdraw their curative review petitions (and generally of 
parties to withdraw their cases) is acknowledged by the law 
[ref: Reviews on behalf of Justice (Retd.) Abdul Ghani 
Sheikh (PLD 2013 SC 1024]. Exceptions to the said rule 
exist for instance public interest litigation filed under Article 
184(3) of the Constitution cannot be withdrawn except with 
the permission of the Court [ref: Jurists Foundation Vs. 
Federal Government (PLD 2020 SC 1) at para 6]. But that 
exception is not applicable to the instant case because it is 
not litigation in the public interest. Rather the present 
CMA NO. 2012 OF 2023 ETC. 
13
matter emanates from Article 209 of the Constitution which 
grants the Supreme Judicial Council, and not the Court, the 
exclusive power to inquire into the misconduct of a Superior 
Court 
Judge. 
Therefore, 
the 
appellants 
retain 
the 
unconditional right to withdraw their curative review 
petitions filed against the Subject Judgment. This result is, 
however, without prejudice to what has been noted above, 
namely, that the pendency of proceedings or the presence of 
a party is not necessary for the Court to exercise Suo Motu 
jurisdiction. All that is required for the Court to act is 
cognizable information.  
11.  
The instant Civil Misc. Applications filed by the 
appellants are accordingly allowed and their curative review 
petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.         
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Sd/- 
     
  
 
                     Umar Ata Bandial 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
