Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 337 (JK)

ABDUL AHAD LONE v. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

2021-07-15

RAJNESH OSWAL, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. In this bunch of review petitions, the petitioners are seeking review of the judgment dated 29.01.2021 passed by this Court in LPA No. 269/2019 along-with clubbed matters under the title State of J&K & Ors. Vs. Abdul Ahmad Lone. In terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court allowed the appeals filed by the State and set aside the common judgment passed by the Writ Court. 2. As is apparent from the judgment, all the issues raised by the parties have been elaborately discussed and decided. These review petitions are an effort by the petitioners to re-agitate the same issues which have been finally decided by this Court by a well considered judgment. 3. From the memorandum of the review petitions, it clearly transpires that the petitioners want this Court to hear the matter afresh and decide the issues already decided by taking a different view. Such course is not permissible in law. 4. Following are the points that have been highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments:- a) That the Government order No. 43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 was prospective in operation and, therefore, not applicable to the petitioners who were engaged by the department prior to the issuance of the said Government order. b) That the Court has not considered the impact of SRO 520 of 2017, which confers on the review petitioners the benefit of regular engagement and, therefore, this Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. c) This court has not appreciated the documentary evidence on record, which clearly demonstrated that review petitioners were all-along in the service of the respondent-department and had not been disengaged by any formal order. 5. The review petitions are opposed by the respondent-State on the ground that this Court has passed the judgment, sought to be reviewed after considering the rival contentions, in great detail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issues, which have been sought to be raised by the petitioners, have already been considered and decided by this Court and, therefore, re-hearing of the matter under the garb of review is not permissible under law. It is further submitted that unless the petitioners demonstrate the error apparent on the face of the record, the review jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked or exercised. 6. It is further submitted that unless the petitioners demonstrate the error apparent on the face of the record, the review jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked or exercised. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate any of the grounds envisaged under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC for seeking review of the judgment dated 29.01.2021. 7. Before we proceed in the matter, we deem it appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in “Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. Vs. Sheikh Habib, 1975(1) SCC 674 ”, which for facilitation are reproduced hereunder:- “….A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient….” 8. To the similar effect, observations have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-8 of the judgment rendered in “M/s Northern India Caterers (India)Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167 , which for facilitation is reproduced hereunder:- “8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933 , 948; AIR 1965 SC 845 : (1965) 1 SCJ 377 . For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment. ……But whatever the nature of the proceedings, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”. 9. ……But whatever the nature of the proceedings, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except “where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility”. 9. It is now beaten law that review of the judgment or order in terms of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC will be maintainable only on the following grounds:- i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after, the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of record; iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted to be those which are at-least analogous to those specified in clause (i) and clause (ii) hereinabove. 10. It is equally well settled that a review will not be available on the following grounds:- i) Repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications; ii) Minor mistake of inconsequential import; iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case; iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the fact of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice; v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error; vi) Mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review; vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched; viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition; ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 11. Viewed the case of the petitioners in light of the settled legal position, adumbrated hereinabove, it is manifest that the case of the petitioners does not fall within well established parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for exercise of review jurisdiction. 11. Viewed the case of the petitioners in light of the settled legal position, adumbrated hereinabove, it is manifest that the case of the petitioners does not fall within well established parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for exercise of review jurisdiction. It is not the case of error apparent on the face of record nor the petitioners have been able to demonstrate any discovery of new matter or evidence, which if had been produced at the time of the arguments might have altered the judgment. No other sufficient reason analogous to the error apparent on the face of record or discovery of new relevant material is either pleaded or demonstrated in these petitions. The issues which have been sought to be re-agitated have already been considered, debated and decided in the judgment sought to be reviewed. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in these review petitions, same are accordingly, dismissed.