Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 415 (JK)

Kishori Lal Gaind v. Vaibhav Mehra

2019-09-18

SINDHU SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sindhu Sharma, J. 1. This petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 24.01.2019 passed by this Court in OWP No. 101/2019 whereby the Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu was directed to decide the petition under Guardian and Wards Act as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months. 2. In paragraph 1 of the petition, petitioners seek review of the order only to the extent of 'time frame' in the said order. However, in paragraph 2(g) of the petition, it is stated, that the order passed in OWP No. 101/2019 is being challenged by the petitioners on the grounds that the order has been passed in gross violation of law and without any opportunity of being heard granted to the petitioners, and that this petition has been filed only to harass and pressurize them. 3. Preliminary objections have been filed by the respondent. Mr. Anil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the very outset, submitted that since this review petition is not in terms of Rule 66 of the High Court Rules, 1999, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. It is also submitted by him that all the grounds raised in the petition can only be construed as grounds of appeal. Since the petitioners are unable to show any error apparent on the face of record, this petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Petition for review of the judgment can only be filed in terms of Rules 65 and 66 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999. 7. Rules 65 and 66 are reproduced as under: "65. Application for review of Judgment.-The Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review shall be entertained except on the ground mentioned in order XLVII Rule I of the Code. 66. (1) An application for review shall set forth the grounds, on which a review is sought, plainly and concisely. It shall be signed by a counsel and shall contain a certificate by an Advocate of the Court that it is supported by proper grounds in the following form, namely "I .....Advocate for the above named........ petitioner do hereby certify that I have perused the Judgment and the relevant record of the case and in my opinion the grounds contained in the petition are good and sufficient for the review sought. petitioner do hereby certify that I have perused the Judgment and the relevant record of the case and in my opinion the grounds contained in the petition are good and sufficient for the review sought. "No such application shall be entertained by the Court without the aforesaid certificate. 8. Rule 66 states that no such application for review shall be entertained by the court without the certificate filed by the advocate. Perusal of the petition reveals, it only contained an affidavit in support of the petition. No such certificate in terms of Rule 66 has been annexed with the file. Similar question had been aroused for consideration in Ali Mohammad Wani vs. Qazi Abdul Rashid, : 1999 SLJ 56 where Rule 51(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1975 with regard to application for review of the judgment was considered by the Court and this Court has held in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment as under: "The Rule provides that incase aforementioned prescribed certificate is not appended or attached or placed with the petition/application, court shall not entertain the review petition/application. The Rule is couched in mandatory form. In absence of the certificate the court is barred to entertain the review. In Bashir Ahmad Dar Vs. State and others, SLJ 1985 J&K 100, the D.B. of this court observed. "....The language of Rule 51 is mandatory and it is ordered by this Rule that "no such application shall be entertained by the court without the aforesaid certificate." The form of the certificate is also prescribed by the Rule. We, therefore, are not inclined to entertain this review petition because it does bear the certificate of the Advocate as required by Rule 51 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules. The petition is, therefore, dismissed...." 9. Since the language of Rule 51(2) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1975 and the Rule 66 of the High Court Rules, 1999 is the same, therefore, this judgment applies squarely to the facts of the case in hand as the Rule 51(2) has been held mandatory in nature. 10. Therefore, in view of the fact that this petition is not accompanied by a certificate of the advocate in terms of Rule 66 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999, this petition is dismissed. 10. Therefore, in view of the fact that this petition is not accompanied by a certificate of the advocate in terms of Rule 66 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999, this petition is dismissed. Otherwise also the ground of challenge as urged by the petitioners in the petition can only construed as ground of appeal and can be raised in the appellate forum only as held in 'State of J&K Vs. Govt. Handloom Silk Weaving Factory & connected matters, 2016 (11) SLJ 651'. Since there is no error apparent on the face of record, therefore, there is no ground to warrant review of the order. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected CMs.