Nazir Ahmed vs Maqbool Ahmed
2025 Latest Caselaw 687 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Nazir Ahmed vs Maqbool Ahmed on 5 August, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                               Sr. No. 02



           HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                           AT JAMMU

 RP No. 20/2025 in
 CR No. 32/2016
 CM No. 3871/2025
 CM No. 3872/2025

 Nazir Ahmed .                                               .....Appellants

                      Through: Mr. Ankush Manhas, Advocate

                 Vs

 Maqbool Ahmed
                                                         ..... Respondents

                      Through:

 CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
                              ORDER

05.08.2025

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

3. The delay in filing the review petition is, accordingly, condoned.

4. Application stands disposed of.

1. Through the medium of the present review petition, the

review petitioner is seeking review of order/judgment dated

18.05.2023, whereby petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India filed by the review petitioner has been dismissed by this

Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

3. The ground that has been urged for reviewing the

judgment dated 18.05.2023 is that the Executing Court, while

directing recovery of possession of 04 marlas of land from the

petitioner has exceeded its jurisdiction because the Executing Court

was only vested with power to execute the judgment and decree for

permanent prohibitory injunction but the said Court converted it

into a decree for possession and directed recovery of possession of

04 marlas of land. It has been contended that this Court while

exercising its powers of supervision was obliged to take these

aspects into consideration but the same has not been done. It has

been submitted that on this ground, the judgment deserves to be

reviewed.

4. A perusal of the judgment under review reveals that this

Court after considering the material on record, came to the

conclusion that the view taken by the Executing Court that the

review petitioner/judgment debtor has encroached upon the land

belonging to the respondent/decree holder appears to be plausible

and the said view cannot be termed as "erroneous". Thus, it is not a

case where the aforesaid contention of the petitioner has not been

taken into consideration by this Court.

5. The issue as to whether declining to interfere in the view

taken by the Executing Court, this Court has gone wrong, cannot be

a subject matter of deliberation and discussion in a review petition.

Merely because a judge has gone wrong, cannot form a ground to

review any order. The petitioner by filing present review petition has

tried to convert the same into an appeal against the judgment

sought to be reviewed, which cannot be permitted. If at all, the

petitioner has any grievance against the judgment under review, he

has to avail appropriate remedy before a superior Court but this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of review, cannot re-hear and

decide the issues which have already been dealt with in the

judgment under review.

6. The review petition lacks merit and is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 05.08.2025 Tarun/PS

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No