Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Zahir Sonober & Anr vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 15 April, 2022
Sr. No.3
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CJ Court
RP No.08/2022
C/W
RP No.10/2022
ZAHIR SONOBER & ANR. ...PETITIONER(S)
Through:- Petitioners in person.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:- None.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER
15-04-2022
Per Sanjay Dhar 'J'
1) The petitioners have filed the instant review petitions
against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 passed by
this Court in a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals and writ
petitions challenging the selection of Naib Tehsildars held
pursuant to three separate advertisement notices issued on
16.04.2002, 04.05.2005 and 26.05.2008. Although a number of
grounds have been projected in the review petitions but
RP No.08/2022
RP No.10/2022 Page |2
during the course of arguments, the petitioners laid stress on
the following two grounds:
(I) That the observation of this Court in the
judgment under review that the judgment dated
31.12.2014 passed in SWP No.487/2009
(Hamidullah Dar's case) and the judgment
dated 19.08.2015 (Inamul Haq's case) are
judgments in personam and not judgments in
rem, is not in accordance with law and, as such,
the impugned judgment deserves to be
reviewed;
(II) That the cases of review petitioners stand on the
same footing as the cases of writ petitioners in
SWP No.360/2017, who, as per the directions
passed in the impugned judgment, were
directed to be considered for appointment
against the posts of Naib Tehsildars;
2) We have heard learned counsel for the review
petitioners and perused the record.
3) Before dealing with the contentions raised by the
petitioners, it would be apt to notice the law relating to scope
of review.
RP No.08/2022
RP No.10/2022 Page |3
4) Rule 65 of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Rules, 1999 deals with power of the High Court to review its
judgments. It reads 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 1 of the Code."
5) From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that
a plea for review of a judgment can be entertained only on the
grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Here it would be apt to quote the provisions
contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which reads as
under:
"1. Application for review of judgment-"(1)
Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an
appeal is allowed, but from which no
appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a
court of small causes, and who, from
the discovery of new an important
matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not
within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the
decree was passed or order made, or
on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or
RP No.08/2022
RP No.10/2022 Page |4
for any other sufficient reason, desires
to obtain a review of the decree passed
or order made against him, may apply
for a review of judgment to the court
which passed the decree or made the
order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a
decree or order may apply for a review
of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other
party except where the ground of such
appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being
respondent, he can present to the
appellate court the case on which he
applies for the review.
[Explanation:- The fact that the
decision on a question of law on which
the judgment of the court is based has
been reversed or modified by the
subsequent decision of a superior
court in any other case, shall not be a
ground for review of such judgment.] "
12) From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that
the review of a judgment can be made on the following
grounds:
(i) if it is shown by the aggrieved person that a
new and important matter and evidence
which, after exercise of due diligence, was
not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him, has been discovered;
(ii) if there is some mistake or error apparent
on the face of record; and
(iii) for any other sufficient reason.
RP No.08/2022
RP No.10/2022 Page |5
The expression "for any sufficient reason" has been
interpreted by the Courts to mean a reason analogous to the
first two reasons.
13) Now coming to the grounds of review urged by the
petitioners. It has been contended that this Court has fallen
into an error while giving a finding that the judgments in
Hamidullah Dar's case and Inamul Haq's case are judgments
in personam and not judgments in rem. This aspect of the
matter has been dealt withy in some detail by us in para 20 of
the impugned judgment. The question whether or not the
reasoning given by this Court in arriving at a finding that the
judgments in the aforesaid cases are the judgments in
personam is in accordance with law, cannot be a matter of
discussion for this Court while exercising jurisdiction of
review. Even if it is assumed that the view taken by this Court
on this point may not be correct but it is not a ground for
review that a judgment proceeds on an incorrect exposition of
law. Simply because a Judge has gone wrong in law, that is not
a ground for review, though it may be aground for appeal.
Similarly, an erroneous view of law is no ground for review
though it may be a good ground for appeal. Therefore, the
RP No.08/2022
RP No.10/2022 Page |6
contention raised by the petitioners in this regard is without
any merit.
14) So far as the second ground urged by the petitioners is
concerned, the same is also without any merit for the reason
that the writ petitioners who had filed SWP No.360/2017 had
approached the Court on an earlier occasion and filed writ
petitions bearing SWP Nos.1809/2009 and 1299/2009. Both
these writ petitions were filed before the judgment in Inamul
Haq's case was delivered, which came to be delivered on
19.08.2015. So, the petitioners in SWP No.360/2017 had
challenged the selection process without waiting for the
outcome of Inamul Haq's case, which is not the case with the
present review petitioners who have approached the Court
after the judgment in Inamul Haq's case was delivered and
till that time, they sat on the fence and allowed their claims to
go stale. The review petitioners, it seems, have approached the
Court for the first time in September, 2015 i.e., well after the
judgment in Inamul Haq's case was delivered. It is because of
this distinction between the cases of review petitioners and
the writ petitioners of SWP No.360/2017 that the claim of the
RP No.08/2022
RP No.10/2022 Page |7
review petitioners has been rejected vide the impugned
judgment.
15) By urging these points once again, the review petitioners
want this Court to re-hear the case and review the judgment.
A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments is not
sufficient for exercising review jurisdiction.
16) Thus, we are of the opinion that all the contentions
raised by the petitioner before the Division Bench have been
appropriately dealt with in the judgment and order under
review and we do not find any error apparent on the face of
record that would warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its review jurisdiction. We do not find any merit
in these review petitions. The same are, accordingly,
dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRINAGAR
15.04.2022
"Bhat Altaf, PS"
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
