P L D 1991 Karachi 223 (PLP)

HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.‑‑Munawar Naimat, petitioner, in Constitution Petition No.D‑754/90 has moved two applications, being Misc. No.312 of 1991 under Order 47, rule 1, C.P.C. for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 18‑10‑1990 passed by a Full Bench of this Court reported in PLD 1991 (January Part) Kar. 1 and the other being Misc. No.313 of 1991 under section 151, C.P.C. for issuance of corrigendum to the title of the said judgment.

2. It may be stated that this petition was taken up, heard and decided alongwith two other petitions bearing Nos.795 and 166 of 1990. In all these three petitions, the President's Order dated 6‑8‑1190 dissolving the National Assembly of Pakistan and dismissing the Federal Cabinet was challenged. In Misc. No.312 of 1991, the main thrust of arguments of Mr.Naimat Moulvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the President of Pakistan could not have invoked his powers under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 being a creation of the Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1985, which act is under consideration of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in an appeal and hence the judgment dated 18‑10‑1990 is liable to be set aside. It is maintained by him that this Court while pronouncing the judgment was also unmindful of the pending appeal challenging the Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1985 and should have awaited the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as to its legality and constitutionality. Further the very fact that the petition challenging the validity of the said Act was admitted as an appeal by itself furnishs a ground for review of judgment dated 18‑10‑1990 passed by this Court.

3. It may be recalled that in Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada v. Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan reported in PLD 1990 Kar. 9, a Full Bench of this Court by a majority view, inter alia, had held that "the National Assembly and Senate had power to pass Eighth Amendment even though they were not Constitutional Assemblies like the Assembly that passed 1972 and 1973 Constitutions because the Amendment was passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed for amending the Constitution and that the Eighth Amendment was not brought about by force and coercion."

4. Admittedly, thb judgment reported in PLD 1990 Kar. 9 was impugned in an appeal before the Supreme Court on the dates of presentation of the three petitions and among others the objection now raised by the petitioner was also taken up at the time of hearing of the said petitions. Learned counsel has failed to substantiate his contention and satisfy us as to how in a pending appeal before the Supreme Court in which the same objections as heard by us or for that matter any other legal or constitutional objections raised before it in any other appeal will furnish a ground for review of a judgment pronounced by this Court. No other ground was, taken up by the learned counsel before us for setting aside the judgment in question by way of review. However, after hearing the learned counsel, we find no error on the face of record nor any misreading of any relevant provisions of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 nor any fresh material on the basis of which a review would lie under law.

5. With regard to other application being Misc. No.313 of 1991, for issuance of the corrigendum, it is contended by Mr.Naimat Moulvi that the petitioner was the first person to have filed the petition in the country on 12‑8‑1990 challenging the President's Order dated 6‑8‑1990 dissolving the National Assembly of Pakistan and dismissing the Federal Cabinet. The other petitions, namely, Constitution Petitions Nos. 795 and 166 of 1990 were filed subsequently but in PLD 1991 (January Part) Kar. 1, the title of the reported case appears under the name of Khalid Malik and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another. Being the first petitioner, it is urged by him that the case ought to have been reported in the name of the petitioner and it will be in the interest of justice that corrigendum be issued to the publisher for substitution of the petitioner's name in place of Khalid Malik in PLD 1991 Kar.

1. This is not the function of this Court to issue corrigendum such' as this desired by the petitioner. It is a matter of record that Mr. Khalid Malik, Advocate, from Quetta was the first petitioner who addressed the Court at the time of hearing of three petitions. Besides, the case has already been reported and the name of petitioner, namely, Munawar Niamat and his petition number are mentioned in the reported judgment. In these circumstances no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if no corrigendum is issued.

6. The above are the reasons for dismissing both the abovementioned applications vide our short order dated 10‑3‑1991. M.BA/M‑1373/K Applications dismissed.