ISLAMABAD, Oct 9: The hitherto perceived face-off between the judiciary and the executive over the language of the draft of a letter to be sent to the Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari turned into a reality on Tuesday.

A day ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the NRO implementation case, the government moved a petition seeking review of the Sept 18 order in which the court had spelt out fourpronged measures that also suggested monitoring by the court of final disposition of the matter. The steps include vetting of the draft by the court before approval.

The apex court also fixed the review petition for hearing on Wednesday.

Legal observers keenly watching the NRO implementation proceedings in the Supreme Court are of the opinion that the filing of the review petition reflects grim chances of presentation by the government of any improved draft in the court.

The government would definitely request the court to first decide the review petition and then resume the NRO implementation case, a source close to the government circle told Dawn.

At the last hearing on Oct 5, the court postponed the proceedings to Wednesday and expressed the confidence that Law Minister Farooq R Naek would produce an improved draft of the letter after consulting Prime Minister Raja Parvez Ashraf.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who heads the five-judge bench hearing the case, had even observed that both the government and the judiciary were inches away from the resolution of the longstanding issue of implementing theNRO verdict.

But after having a closeddoor session with the judges in the chambers, the law minister had flatly refused in the open court to give any commitment to making further changes in the draft.

The source believed that the bone of contention between the executive and the judiciary was the mentioning in the draft of Article 248 of the Constitution as well as the Geneva Conventions.

The references underline the immunity enjoyed by the president from criminal litigations domestically as well as internationally.

Drafted by Deputy Attorney General Dil Mohammad Khan Alizai, the government petition requested the court to review the Sept 18 order in a way that deleted the narration of the four-step procedures.

The four steps are: written authorisation by the prime minister regarding implementation of the NRO verdict; drafting of the relevant communication; dispatch of such communication to and receipt of the same by the Swiss and other authorities; and final confirmation of such receipt of the relevant communication by the authorities concerned abroad.

The review petition pleaded that the letter to be written to the Swiss authorities in accordance in the letter and spirit of the paragraph 178 of the NRO judgment will be the federal government letter which complied with the requirements as mentioned in the said paragraph.

`It was not envisaged to be a letter of the Supreme Court or approved by the court,` it insisted.

The federal government would, therefore, be justified in writing the letter in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 178 of the NRO judgment and thereafter to place it before the court to report compliance. `Thus the narration of steps in the Sept 18 order and monitoring of the same amounts to revisiting para 178 of the judgment,` the petition said, adding that the steps suggested by the court had changed the entire complexions of the NRO judgment.

`The contention of the petitioner is also strengthened by the practice and precedents of this court,` the petition said, adding that it was a settled law that the executing court could not change a concluded and decided judgment or order even with the consent of parties.

If some change was necessary then the course would be available to the court to send it back to the original court, the petition said. The government also pleaded that errors apparent on the face of record in the Sept 18 order was floating on the surface of the order.

`It is the sincere desire of the federal government to resolve the present issue in a manner which upholds the dignity of the court with the resolution of the constitutional and legal concerns of the government,` the petition said.