The Supreme Court’s righteousness Muhammad Ali Mazhar has emphasized that a review of a judgment or order is a serious legal measure that must be implemented only when there is a clear and undeniable error or supervision on the record resulting in a spontaneous booth.

In an additional no-page additional note written during the hearing of a petition, Justice Mazhar wrote that if the error in the judgment is so obvious and obvious, then material that, if it had been noticed before the judgment, the conclusion would have been different, then a notification arrangement is justified.

He noted that the Constitution does not impose any restriction on the Supreme Court’s power to review its previous decisions or even deviate from them.

“… Neither does the doctrine of Stirringscisis stand in the way, as long as the review is justified because of its significant influence on the fundamental rights of citizens or in the public interest. The court is also competent to review its judgment or command SUO MOTU without any formal application.”

The note was handed down together with a decision of a three-judge bench led by justice, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, who rejected the petition for the review and emphasized the need to deter the filing of junk reviews.

Justice Mazhar clarified in her extra note that SC’s review competence is not a relapse option for unsuccessful litigation to reopen cases, but a narrowly defined legal tool intended to correct shining and accompanying.

He observed that while interpreting statutory provisions or the Constitution, some errors may be clear on the ground and cause significant damage, which required remedial intervention to maintain justice.

Such cases, he explained, may include the discovery of new and significant evidence that was not available despite Due Diligence, an error or error that is clearly visible on the post or other sufficient cause. The reason for “The error apparently on the ground,” he added, applies to both civil and criminal petitions.

“In order for such a review to be entertained, the specific reason must not only be mentioned in the lawyer’s certificate, but also be conspicuous in the review of the petition instead of relying on sweeping or irrational reasons that have no Nexus with the case,” the note reads.

“Without a doubt, it is the duty of the judges of the right to correct their mistakes because the principles of the laws appointed in their judgments are binding on all other courts in the country in accordance with Article 189.”

“Orders based on a mistaken assumption of material facts or those made without advertising a legislative supply or reflecting a deviation from the undisputed construction of the law and the constitution may constitute an error that is evident on the ground and can be corrected.”

Justice Mazhar expressed concern about the growing tendency for submission of petitions without discrimination, often supported by certificates from advocates who simply repeat arguments already treated in the original case.

“At present, it has become a custom or routine practice to submit reviews unconsciously and irreparably, based on certificates issued by advocates who simply mimic the reasons that were already called on and decided in the head petition or appeal without specifying any genuine errors in the judgment or order that exchanges its reversal.”

He noted that it was high time that practice was condemned and condemned when it constituted “nothing but waste and depletion of the precious time of the court and puts an unnecessary burden on its dock”.