Dismissed

Ravinder Singh Jamwal v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Its Secretary, Genral Administration Department

J&K HC7 Sept 2021RP/100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir allowed an application for condonation of delay of 59 days to file a review petition in a previous writ case. It subsequently dismissed the review petition, holding that the grounds raised did not satisfy the requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC as the issues were already argued or lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 59 days allowed; Review petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

Ravinder Singh Jamwal Vs Union Territory of Jammu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 3

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CJ Court

¶4

Case: RP No. 100 of 2021

¶5

Ravinder Singh Jamwal and another

¶6

.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

¶7

Through :- Sh. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Varut Kumar Gupta, Advocate

¶8

v/s

¶9

Union Territory of J&K and others

.....Respondent(s)

Through :-

Coram: CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application has been filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition seeking review of the judgment dated 28.04.2021 passed by this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2017, titled, „Irtiza Mushtaq vs State of J&K and others‟, on the ground that the Apex Court has extended the period of limitation due to Covid- 19 pandemic. It is further stated that in fact there is no delay in filing the present review petition.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 59 days in filing the review petition is condoned. Condonation Application No. 6214 of 2021 is disposed of.

¶17

Review petition is taken up on board.

¶18

The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking review of the judgment dated 28.04.2021 on the following grounds:

¶19

2 RP No. 100 of 2021

¶20

(i) that the judgment passed by this Court runs contrary to the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this in the writ petition filed by the petitioners along with others, whereby the respondent-Municipal Corporation Jammu was directed to consider and take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the mandate of the Jammu and Kashmir Allotment of Municipal Corporation Residential Accommodation Bye-Laws of 2020;

¶21

(ii) that the issue of conversion of cattle pound was already considered by the Accountability Commission and the writ petition had been filed with malice.

¶22

(iii) that the petitioners were entitled to accommodation being employees of the Jammu Municipal Corporation and as such their initial allotments were not illegal and by virtue of the judgment sought to be reviewed, the petitioners have been debarred from consideration of their cases for allotment as per bye-laws mentioned above.

¶23

Heard Sh. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel assisted by Sh. Varut Kumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record.

¶24

In terms of section 114, read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), review of the judgment or order is maintainable only on the grounds:

¶25

(a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after, the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and or could not be produced by him,

¶26

3 RP No. 100 of 2021

¶27

(b) mistake or error apparent on the face of record or

¶28

¶29

The words “any other sufficient reason” means a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule.

¶30

So far as scope of “review” is concerned, the Apex Court in Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 has held as under:

¶31

An application for review would lie inter alia when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai [AIR 2003 SC 2095] this Court held:

¶32

“ 6 . The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.”

¶33

9. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other sufficient reason.

¶34

10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

¶35

11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224] this Court held:

¶36

“ 56 . It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a

¶37

4 RP No. 100 of 2021

¶38

view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.”

¶39

Now if the issues raised by the petitioners are examined in the light of law laid down by Apex Court, we find that the petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate any of the grounds as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for seeking review of the aforesaid judgment.

¶40

So far as grounds 1 and 2 are concerned, it needs to be noted that the petitioners who figured as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the writ petition were represented by their counsel and these facts were well within the knowledge of the petitioners, when the matter was argued. Therefore when such pleas were not raised at earlier point of time, the petitioners

¶41

now cannot seek review of the judgment on the said pleas.

¶42

So far as ground No. 3 is concerned, this Court has already considered the same and now the petitioners cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same by way of filing review petition. The petitioners may have a remedy somewhere else but the review cannot be considered as the remedy as available to the petitioners.

¶43

Viewed thus, the petition is devoid of any merit, as such, the same is dismissed.

¶44

JAMMU

¶45

07.09.2021 Rakesh

¶46

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Ravinder Singh Jamwal v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Its Secretary, Genral Administration Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh Jamwal v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Its Secretary, Genral Administration Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Satyam Cements Near Industrial Area,Rakh Jalphar Kathua (J and K ) Th. Its Managing Partner Vs Union of India through Secretary to Government

Noor Hussain and Ors. Vs State Th.Urban Deptt.and Ors.

Suman Lata Vs Deputy Director Estates Jammu, Estates Department

Parath Jamwal Vs Jammu Development Authority Th Its Vice Chairman and Others

Abdul Ghani Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary Revenue Department

Nikhil Padha, Human Rights Activist Vs Chairman National Human Rights Commission