Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Pritam Advertising Agency vs University Of Jammu And Others on 26 May, 2025
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1277
Serial No.31
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
RPOWP No.4/2017 in
OWP No.938/2015
M/s Pritam Advertising Agency ....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. G.S.Thakur, Advocate
V/s
University of Jammu and others ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. A.P.Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
26.05.2025
1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner herein seeks review of
judgment dated 29.12.2015, passed by this Court in OWP No.938/2015,
whereby the writ petition has been disposed of finally.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while OWP
No.938/2015 was pending disposal before this Court, the petitioner had
preferred an application i.e. MP No.2/2015 thereby seeking a direction to
the respondents to release the pending payment subject to outcome of the
writ petition by deducting 12% amount with a further direction to the
respondents that in the event of decision of the writ petition in favour of
the petitioner, the respondents shall release the payment of deducted
amount. However, due to an advertent error, the main writ petition i.e.
938/2015 came to be disposed of instead of MP No.2/2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the error occurred in
the order under review is apparent on the face of record, as such, the order
needs to be reviewed to the extent it has disposed of the main writ petition
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1277
along with connected MP. He submits that in order dated 19.12.2015, the
Court was dealing only with the application moved by the petitioner,
therefore, vide order dated 19.12.2015 only application ought to have been
disposed of and not the entire writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
5. In paragraph No.2 of the order under review, this Court noted down
the submission of the petitioner, which reads thus:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner
would be satisfied if the application is disposed of directing
respondents to release the amount whatever due to him less
than 12.6% without prejudice to this stand in the writ
petition."
6. A perusal of afore-quoted portion of the order under review reveals
that the Court while passing order dated 29 th December, 2015, was only
considering the application of the petitioner. The submission of the
petitioner was to direct the respondent to release the amount whatever due
to him after deducting 12.5%, without prejudice to his stand in the writ
petition. Therefore, only application, which was being considered by this
Court, ought to have been disposed of and not the main writ petition. It
appears that due to typographical error, the writ petition has been
disposed of a/w connected MP."
7. In view of the above, it becomes manifest that there is an error
apparent on the face of record, as such, this petition needs to be allowed.
Accordingly, order dated 29.12.2015, is reviewed to the extent it disposed
of the main writ petition, it is provided that vide order dated 29.12.2015,
only MP No.2/22015 is disposed of. As a consequence, the writ petition
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1277
(OWP No.938/2015) is restored to its original number and the Registry
shall list the same on 21st July, 2025.
) (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi)
Jammu: Judge
26.05.2025
Vinod
