Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts.184(3), 175E(3) & 188---Original constitutional jurisdiction---Final judgment of Supreme Court---Attempt to reopen concluded litigation---Maintainability---Held, that original constitutional jurisdiction under Art.184(3), and after constitutional reconfiguration Art.175E(3), is not an appellate, revisional, supervisory or collateral review jurisdiction over final judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in appeal and affirmed in review---Such jurisdiction remains conditioned upon a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights and cannot be invoked to create a horizontal appeal against concluded Supreme Court adjudication. Cited Cases: • Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416 • Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 997 • District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2015 SC 401 (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.184(3)---Public importance and enforcement of fundamental rights---Individual grievance---Land acquisition compensation dispute---Held, that public importance and enforcement of fundamental rights are jurisdictional preconditions for invoking original constitutional jurisdiction---A private dispute concerning compensation arising out of land acquisition proceedings, already adjudicated through the judicial hierarchy, does not become a matter of public importance merely because a party seeks to reopen concluded litigation. (c) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.188---Review jurisdiction---Finality of judgments---Scope---Held, that Art.188 provides the constitutionally recognized corrective mechanism after final adjudication by the Supreme Court, subject to law and rules---Once appellate remedy and review have been exhausted, a party cannot indirectly reopen the same controversy through a fresh constitutional petition under Art.184(3) or Art.175E(3)---Finality of judgments is indispensable to administration of justice and institutional certainty. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473 • Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582 (d) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.175E(3)---Federal Constitutional Court---Effect of constitutional amendment---No appellate supervision over concluded Supreme Court judgments---Held, that even after incorporation of Art.175E(3), constitutional provisions of similar nature must be construed harmoniously within the structural framework of the Constitution---Nothing in Art.175E(3) vests the Federal Constitutional Court with supervisory, appellate or review jurisdiction over final judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in appeal and affirmed in review---The provision cannot be converted into a collateral appellate mechanism. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.184(3)---Original jurisdiction---Not a substitute for appeal or review---Held, that Art.184(3) is extraordinary in nature and designed for cases involving systemic or structural violations of fundamental rights requiring immediate constitutional scrutiny---It is not meant for re-agitating matters already determined through regular judicial hierarchy, nor for redress of individual grievances arising out of concluded litigation. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.188 read with Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules, 1980---Review petition against order dismissing C.M. Appeal and sustaining office objection---Maintainability---Held, that where the office had objected to the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Art.184(3), and the C.M. Appeal against such objection had been dismissed on the ground that the petition did not involve public importance or enforcement of fundamental rights, a further review petition seeking to reopen the concluded controversy was not maintainable. (g) Constitutional Law---- ----Doctrine of finality---Perpetual litigation disfavoured---Held, that the Constitution does not envisage perpetual litigation; judicial discipline requires a terminus to adjudication---Permitting concluded Supreme Court judgments to be reopened through Art.184(3) or Art.175E(3) after dismissal of review would render Art.188 redundant and destabilize the doctrine of finality. (h) Constitutional Law---- ----Curative review---Exceptional jurisdiction---No general right to reopen concluded judgments---Held, that reliance upon the concept of curative review could not assist the petitioner where no general curative jurisdiction exists to permit reopening of concluded judgments as a matter of course---Exceptional constitutional proceedings in distinct circumstances do not create a routine collateral remedy against final adjudication. Disposition: Review petition was dismissed as not maintainable; order dismissing C.M. Appeal and sustaining office objection to the constitutional petition under Art.184(3) was maintained.