Baldev Raj and Others Vs Rahul Gupta — J&K HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Baldev Raj and Others Vs Rahul Gupta — J&K HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 14.08.2025 imposing cost of Rs.5000/- set aside; court below directed to decide the pending review petition on its own merits without insisting on written submissions, most expeditiously and preferably within one month.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cost of Rs.5000/- imposed by the learned court below on the petitioner for not filing written submissions was justified, and whether the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 should be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

The costs imposed upon the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances are uncalled for, and the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

A review petition is to be decided on the basis of the limited grounds available under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC; there is no need of filing written submissions or making elaborate arguments while deciding a review petition.

Key takeaways

A direction is issued to the court below to decide the review petition on its own merits without insisting upon filing of the written submissions by the parties.ratio¶¶18
The review petition shall be decided by the learned court below most expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is made available to the said court.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COST FOR NON-FILING OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN REVIEW PETITION SET ASIDE — A review petition falls to be decided on the limited grounds available under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; there is no need of filing written submissions or making elaborate arguments while deciding a review petition. The insistence of the trial court upon written submissions, and the consequent imposition of cost of Rs.5000/- on the petitioner (who is also the review petitioner in a pending review petition before the 1st Additional District Judge), were held uncalled for. The impugned order dated 14.08.2025 was set aside and the court below was directed to decide the review petition on its own merits without insisting on written submissions, most expeditiously and preferably within one month. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar. Petition disposed of on 14.10.2025.

Sr. No. 24

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

CM (M) No. 254/2025 CM No. 5765/2025

Baldev Raj and others

…..Appellant(s)/petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate

Vs

Rahul Gupta

.…. Respondents

Through: Mr. Kuldeep Raj Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 14.10.2025

Through the medium of present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 14.08.2025, passed by learned 1^st Additional District, Judge whereby, cost of Rs.5000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner herein for not filing the written submissions.

I have heared learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned court below has imposed cost of Rs.5000/- upon the petitioner for not filing the written submissions. It seems that a review petition against the order of learned court below is pending before the said court and in that petition, the petitioner herein, who also happens to be the review petitioner, had sought time to file written submissions.

It is to be noted that a review petition is to be decided on the basis of the limited grounds available under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. A review petitioner has to make out his case within the

CM (M) No. 254/2025 CM No. 5765/2025

parameters of those limited grounds, and he has to spell out these grounds in his petition. There is no need of filing any written submissions or making elaborate arguments while deciding a review petition. In these circumstances, the insistence of the learned trial court upon filing of written submissions was uncalled for and for this purpose the case should not have been adjourned from time to time. In case the review petitioner was not filing the written submissions, the learned trial court should have proceeded and to decide the review petition on its own merits without waiting for the written submissions.

The costs imposed upon the petitioner herein in the aforesaid circumstances are uncalled for. The impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is therefore, set aside and a direction is issued to the court below to decide the review petition on its own merits without insisting upon filing of the written submissions by the parties.

It is further directed that the review petition shall be decided by the learned court below most expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is made available to the said court.

Disposed of.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

JAMMU 14.10.2025 Mahavir