 
In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
Order Sheet 
 
Civil Misc. Appeal No.193 of 2013 
 
in 
 
Civil Review Petition No. Nil of 2013  
 
in 
 
Constitution Petition No.8 of 2009 
 
General (R) Pervaiz Mushrraf  
Appellant 
Versus  
 
Nadeem Ahmed (Advocate) & others  
Respondents 
 
Prayer: 
“that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the 
Review Petition may kindly be ordered to be 
entertained.” 
 
8.1.2014 
Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Sr. ASC 
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
 
Order 
 
 
 
While examining this review petition on behalf of 
General (Retd) Pervaiz Mushrraf against the judgment dated 
31.7.2009, passed in Constitution Petition No.8 of 2009, the office 
has raised following objections with regard to its maintainability:- 
 
i. 
Scandalous language has been used against the Hon’ble Judges 
of this Court at so many places in this Review Petition, therefore 
it cannot be entertained under Order XVII, Rule 5 of the Supreme 
Court Rules, 1980. 
 
ii. 
As per certificate of the AOR this is second Review Petition 
against the order under Review dated 31.07.2009 passed in 
Constitution Petition No.08/2009, first Review Petition was 
dismissed vide judgment reported as PLD 2010 SC 483. 
Therefore, it is not entertainable under Order XXVI Rule 9 of 
Supreme Court Rules, 1980. 
 
iii. 
It is mentioned in this Review Petition that it has been drawn by 
Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr.ASC, Raja Muhammad Ibrahim 
Satti, Sr.ASC, Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Sr.ASC, Sahibzada Ahmed Raza 
Civil Misc. Appeal No.193 of 2013 
2
Khan Qasuri, Sr.ASC, Barrister Dr. Muhammad Ali Saif, ASC and 
Rana Ijaz Ahmad, ASC, however, it has not been signed by Syed 
Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr.ASC.  
 
iv. 
Certificate of fitness of Review Petition has only been signed by 
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr.ASC instead of having been 
signed by all the counsel who have drawn this Review Petition 
which is essentially required under Order under Order XXVI Rule 
4 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980.  
 
v. 
An application for exemption to the requirements of Order XXVI 
Rule 6 has been filed. In this Review Petition and permission has 
been sought that petitioner may be allowed to engage Raja 
Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr.ASC in this Review Petition. 
However, this Review Petition has been mentioned to have been 
drawn by Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr.ASC, Raja Muhammad 
Ibrahim Satti, Sr.ASC, Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Sr.ASC, Sahibzada 
Ahmed Raza Khan Qasuri, Sr.ASC, Barrister Dr. Muhammad Ali 
Saif, ASC and Rana Ijaz Ahmad, ASC.  
 
vi. 
It has been mentioned in this Review Petition that Petitioner was 
not party in Constitution Petition No.08/2009 order passed in 
which is sought to be reviewed through this Review Petition and 
no application for permission to the petitioner to file this Review 
Petition has been filed. 
 
vii. 
Party names cannot be verified as paper books of Constitution 
Petition No.08/2009 have not been filed. 
 
viii. 
Misc. Application for staying the proceedings of High Treason 
Trial before the Special Court is misconceived in this Review 
Petition. 
ix. 
Instead of 14 Paper books only four paper books of Review 
Petition have been filed. 
2. 
I have heard the arguments of Raja Muhammad 
Ibrahim Satti, learned Sr. ASC on behalf of the appellant. He 
candidly stated that so far as the office objections No.iii, v, vi, vii & 
ix are concerned, their compliance will be made by the appellant’s 
AOR within two days time; so far as office objections No.i, ii & viii 
are concerned, those are of the nature which are to be considered 
and decided by the Court while hearing the case, and so far as 
office objection No.iv is concerned, due to filing of certificate of 
fitness of the review petition by him under Order XXVI Rule 4 of 
the Supreme Court Rules 1980, such objection is not maintainable 
and liable to be overruled.  
Civil Misc. Appeal No.193 of 2013 
3
3. 
After careful examination of the case record, 
particularly, the reply to these objections contained in the memos 
of appeal, I find submissions of the learned Sr. ASC quite fair, just 
and equitable. Accordingly, office objection No.iv is overruled; two 
days’ time is allowed for compliance of office objections No.iii, v, vi, 
vii & ix, while the office objections No.i, ii & viii are ordered to be 
placed before the Court at the time of hearing of review petition. 
Title appeal against the order of the Registrar is accordingly 
disposed of.  
    (Anwar Zaheer Jamali) 
 
       Judge 
 
 
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
Order Sheet 
 
Civil Misc. Appeal No.194 of 2013 
 
in 
 
Civil Review Petition No. Nil of 2013  
 
in 
 
Constitution Petition No.9 of 2009 
 
General (R) Pervaiz Mushrraf  
Appellant 
Versus  
 
Sindh High Court Bar Association and others  
Respondents 
 
Prayer: 
“that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the 
Review Petition may kindly be ordered to be 
entertained.” 
 
8.1.2014 
Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Sr. ASC 
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
 
Order 
 
 
 
While examining this review petition on behalf of 
General (Retd) Pervaiz Mushrraf, against the judgment dated 
31.7.2009 passed in Constitution Petition No.9 of 2009, the office 
has raised following objections with regard to its maintainability:- 
i. 
Scandalous language has been used against the 
Hon’ble Judges of this Court at so many places in 
this case, therefore it cannot be entertained under 
Order XVII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules,1980. 
 
ii. 
As per certificate of the AOR this is second Review 
Petition against the order under Review dated 
31.07.2009 
passed 
in 
Constitution 
Petition 
No.09/2009, first Review Petition was dismissed vide 
judgment reported as PLD 2010 SC 483. Therefore, it 
is not entertainable under Order XXVI Rule 9 of 
Supreme Court Rules, 1980. 
 
iii. 
It is mentioned in this Review Petition that it has 
been drawn by Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr.ASC, 
Civil Misc. Appeal No.194 of 2013 
2
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr.ASC, Dr. Khalid 
Ranjha, Sr.ASC and Barrister Dr. Muhammad Ali 
Saif, ASC however, it has not been signed by Syed 
Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr.ASC. 
 
iv. 
Certificate of fitness of Review Petition has only been 
signed by Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr.ASC 
instead of having been signed by all the counsels 
who have drawn this Review Petition which is 
essentially required under Order under Order XXVI 
Rule 4 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980.  
 
v. 
An application for exemption to the requirements of 
Order XXVI Rule 6 has been filed, in this Review 
Petition and permission has been sought that 
petitioner may be allowed to engage Raja Muhammad 
Ibrahim Satti, Sr.ASC in this Review Petition. 
However, this Review Petition has been mentioned to 
have been drawn by Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, 
Sr.ASC, Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr.ASC, Dr. 
Khalid Ranjha, Sr.ASC and Barrister Dr. Muhammad 
Ali Saif, ASC. 
 
vi. 
Petitioner was not party in Constitution Petition 
No.09/2009 order passed in which is sought to be 
reviewed through this Review Petition and no 
application for permission to the petitioner to file this 
Review Petition has been filed. 
 
vii. 
Misc. Application for staying the proceedings of High 
Treason 
Trial 
before 
the 
Special 
Court 
is 
misconceived in this Review Petition. 
viii. 
Instead of 14 Paper books only four paper books of 
Review Petition have been filed.” 
2. 
I have heard the arguments of Raja Muhammad 
Ibrahim Satti, learned Sr. ASC on behalf of the appellant. He 
candidly stated that so far as office objections No.iii, v, vi & viii are 
concerned, their compliance will be made by the appellant’s AOR 
within two days time; so far as office objections No.i, ii & vii are 
concerned, those are of the nature which are to be considered and 
decided by the Court while hearing the case, and so far as office 
objection No.iv is concerned, due to filing of such certificate of 
fitness for review petition under Order XXVI Rule 4 of the Supreme 
Court Rules 1980 by him, such objection is misconceived and 
liable to be overruled.  
Civil Misc. Appeal No.194 of 2013 
3
3. 
After careful examination of the case record, 
particularly, the reply to various objections contained in the memo 
of appeal, I find the submissions of the learned Sr. ASC quite fair, 
just and equitable. Accordingly, office objection No.iv is overruled; 
two days’ time is allowed for compliance of office objections No.iii, 
v, vi & viii, while the office objections No.i, ii & vii are ordered to be 
placed before the Court alongwith the review petition. Title appeal 
against the order of the Registrar is accordingly disposed of.  
 
    (Anwar Zaheer Jamali) 
 
       Judge 
 
 
 
