P L D 2009 Supreme Court 391 (PLP)

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.

The applicants were petitioners in Civil Petition Nos. 778, 779, 878, 905 and 803 of 2008 which were disposed of by three Members Bench of this Court (comprising Moosa K. Leghari, J., Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J. and Sheikh Hakim Ali, J) vide the judgments dated 25-2-2009. The said judgments are sought to be reviewed in C.R.P. Nos. 45 to 48, 50 and 59 to 60 of 2009. Through these applications the applicant prays that the afore-mentioned review petitions should be heard by the same three Members Bench, which decided the petitions. In support of the payer made, learned counsel referred to the mandate of Order XXVI; Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and the practice of this Court in such matters.

2. We have considered the submissions made, the mandate of this relevant provision in the Supreme Court Rules, as also the practice of this Court.

3. The judgments under review were rendered by a three Members Bench, two out of which are part of this Bench seized of the review petitions. These two Hon'ble Judges are authors of the judgments under review. The third Hon'ble Judge is not functioning at the Principal seat of this Court. Order XXVI, Rule 8 does not lay down an inflexible rule that the review petitions should be laid down before a Bench comprising of the same Judges rather it acknowledges the practical aspect of the matter. It reads as follows:-- "

8. As far as practicable the application for review shall be posted before the same Bench that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed."

4. The expression "by the same Bench" appearing in the afore-referred provision is qualified by "As far .as practicable". The rationale for this may not be difficult to discern because the number of applications for review coming up before this Court may be frequent being the apex Court and the remedies of appeal and revision not being available. Since the hearings of this Court are held at the four Branch Registries as well i.e. at Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta, it may not be practicable for Member of the same Bench to be available at a Bench in a given time. Perhaps a strict adherence to provisions of "hearing by the same Bench" could seriously affect the functioning of different Benches of this Court. Moreover, the well settled practice and convention of this Court is that an application for review is ordinarily placed before the Bench of which the author judge or in case of unavailability any other member of the earlier Bench is a Member, so as to ensure that working of that Bench is not interrupted. The Office Order No.P.Reg.99/90(14)/SCA dated 3-3- 1990 of this Court is reflective of this convention Since two out of the three Hon'ble Judges of the Bench which passed the judgment under review are part of this Bench and as both of them are authors of the same, the mandate of Order XXVI, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, stands substantially complied with. The applications devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed in limine. M.B.A./F-11/S Order accordingly.