A Division Bench dismissed a review petition filed against an earlier judgment, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown and that engagement of new counsel urging fresh grounds does not constitute a valid ground for review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sr. No. 01
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
RP No.47/2026 in WP(C) No.969/2026
Asmat Parveen
.....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Soayib Qureshi, Advocate
v/s
Islamic University of Science and Technology and another
.....Respondent(s)
Through :-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER 18.09.2026
01. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and perused the material available on record, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, which needs rectification or correction.
02. All the points, which were urged by learned counsel appearing for the
review petitioner, have been elaborately dealt with and sufficiently answered. Simply because a new counsel has been engaged by the petitioner and he may have sought to urge new grounds is not a ground for reviewing the judgment.
03. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this review petition
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .
JAMMU 18.09.2026 Shammi
(Mohd Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification of the earlier judgment
Asmat Parveen
Islamic University of Science and Technology
Sanjeev Kumar
Mohd Yousuf Wani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
