Ghulam Mohammad Kanjal And Anr vs Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 369 j&K/2

                                                          S. No. 216
                                                          Suppl. -2 Cause List
            HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                      AT SRINAGAR
                                                              CR No. 43/2018

Ghulam Mohammad Kanjal and Anr.                              .....Petitioner(s)

                          Through: None
      V/s
Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. and Ors.                         ..... Respondent(s)

                          Through: Mr. Shuja-ul-Haq, Advocate


CORAM:
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

                                 ORDER

31.03.2021

1. The petitioners have initially filed a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of

Jammu and Kashmir and thereafter they made a prayer for treating the

same as revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure,

on 22.10.2018, which was accordingly granted and petition was treated

as revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. None has appeared for the review petitioners when the matter was

called out today.

3. Learned appearing counsel for respondents submits that revision

petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied

upon a judgment passed in the case titled Manohar Lal v. Romesh

Chander, reported in 2012 (1) JKJ 411.

4. I have gone through the revision petition, order impugned as well as

judgment referred to by the learned appearing counsel for respondents.

5. This revision petition is against the order dated 29.09.2018, passed by

the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Budgam, whereby order

dated 09.04.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Budgam, has been set aside.

6. In view of the judgment referred to above and provisions of Section 115

of Code of Civil Procedure, it is already settled that the revision against

an order, as one sought to be assailed herein, is not maintainable.

7. Having regard to the judgment referred to above, this revision petition

is dismissed being not maintainable. Interim direction, if any, shall

stand vacated.

(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 31.03.2021 "Manzoor"

MANZOOR UL HASSAN DAR 2021.04.02 11:01