FCCP rules out second review petition after first review is decided

ISLAMABAD, Oct 02 (APP): The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has held that a second review petition cannot be filed in the same matter after a final decision on the first review petition, and a request styled as “recall” or “restoration” cannot be used to seek reconsideration of a judicial decision.

The court observed that recall of an order may be considered where an independent procedural defect is established. However, where the relief sought requires reconsideration of the reasoning or outcome of an earlier judicial order, such a request would in substance amount to a second review petition.

Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi gave the order on a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 37/2026 filed by the Managing Director of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL). The court upheld the Registrar’s objection dated July 3, 2026, and dismissed the appeal.

The court held that under Order 27, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, a second review petition cannot be entertained after final disposal of the first review petition. It noted that Order 10, Rule 2 also limits alteration or addition to a judgment pronounced in open court to correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or an accidental slip or omission.

The matter originated from an Islamabad High Court judgment dated February 2, 2022. The Supreme Court, on September 17, 2025, allowed an appeal against the judgment and declared the private respondent entitled to additional pension under Section 5 of the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Reorganization) Ordinance, 2001, and the relevant pension regulations.

OGDCL subsequently filed a review petition, which was transferred to the FCCP following the 27th Constitutional Amendment. On May 11, 2026, a two-member FCCP bench dismissed the review petition as having become infructuous on the basis of payment of the dues and compliance with the court’s order.

The company later filed an application seeking recall of that order and restoration of the review petition. The Registrar returned the application as not maintainable, prompting the present appeal.

The court held that the company’s contention that compliance with the earlier judgment had not rendered the review petition infructuous amounted to a challenge to the finding recorded in the May 11 order. Accepting the contention would require reconsideration of that judicial finding, making the application, in substance, a second review.

The court also rejected the argument that the absence of counsel constituted an independent procedural defect, noting that the company’s Advocate-on-Record was present. It held that procedural flexibility and inherent powers under Order 35, Rules 1 and 6 could not be used to circumvent the express restriction on review.

The FCCP dismissed the appeal and upheld the Registrar’s objection dated July 3, 2026.