Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 41 (JK)

Saif-du-din Shangloo v. Iqbal Khanday

2015-02-20

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The present review petition is being filed seeking review of the judgment and order Dt. 13.6.2014, whereby CMA No. 188/13, filed by the applicants, petitioners herein, seeking leave of the court to intervene in the contempt petition No. 123/13 connected with SWP No. 1608/92, was rejected. The basis of the claim for intervention in the aforementioned CMA 188/13, was that the applicants also had a stake in the contempt proceedings, in as much as, even when they were not parties to the aforementioned writ petition, the judgment rendered in the same was a judgment in rem and, consequently, the applicants too were entitled to seek its enforcement. 2. This court by virtue of judgment and order Dt. 13.6.14, rejected the aforementioned application for intervention by giving detailed reasons holding that the benefit of the judgment and order Dt. 17.05.2001, passed in SWP No. 1608/92, would not be available to the applicants thereby implying that it was not a judgment in rem. 3. The entire emphasis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, petitioners was that this court committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the judgment and order rendered in SWP No. 1608/92, was in fact, a judgment in rem and not a judgment in personam. It was highlighted that even the legal opinion given by the Law department supported the view of the applicants that the cases of all the Superintending Engineers had to be considered and it could not be restricted to the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petition. 4. Through the medium of the present review petition, the applicants have sought to challenge the judgment and order Dt. 13.6.2014 on merits. In the opinion of this court, there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor do I consider the judgment, of which review is sought, to be suffering from any mistake or find any other sufficient reason which would persuade me to review the order passed by this court Dt. 13.6.2014, in view of the law laid down by the Apex court in the case reported as Board of Control for Cricket, India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others, AIR 2005 SC 592 . This petition is, accordingly, found to be without merit and is dismissed.