The Court emphasized the importance of timely holding of elections to any democratically run institution and held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in exercise of the powers of review.

Validity of order dated 7-2-2003 passed in CIMA No. 151/02 has been called in question by invoking the review jurisdiction of this Court on the following grounds:

(i) Appeal has been decided without summoning and hearing all the respondents in the appeal;

(ii) the appellate Court decided the appeal without admitting the same;

(iii) the counsel for the petitioner (respondent in the appeal) did not agree for disposal of the suit;

(iv) the appeal has been accepted on the grounds not set up in the plaint / memo of appeal;

(v) the judgment relied upon by the appellate Court as reported in AIR 1967 SC 687 cannot be applied to interpret the Bye-laws/ Constitution of an Association, which is a non-statutory body;

(vi) the amendment of the constitution, subject matter of challenge in the suit has been quashed while dealing with the question of grant of interim relief; and

(vii) The appellate Court did not comment on the order of the trial Court and allowed the appeal without setting aside the order impugned in the appeal.

On the above premises, it is contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in exercise of the powers of review under section 114, Order 47 Rule 1, CPC read with Rules 65 and 66 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999.

Mr. Ashok Parihar learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of Review.

Before grounds of review are considered, I deem it proper to deal with the preliminary objection. The maintainability of the review petition is challenged on the ground of contravention of 66 of the J&K High Court Rules, where-under the review petition is required to contain a certificate in the prescribed form. This mandatory requirement of the Rule has not been complied with in as much as the review petition does not contain a certificate as envisaged by the Rule. The certificate on the letter head of the learned Advocate of the petitioners is only accompanying the review petition and that certificate is also not in the language as prescribed under the Rule. The distinction is sought to be made between Rules 66(1) and 66(2). In the former word used is the review petition shall "contain" a certificate, whereas in the latter rule the language used is the review petition shall be "accompanied". According to Mr. Parihar, the Rule is mandatory in nature and the certificate is necessarily to be a part of the review petition and not to accompany the same. Since the review petition itself does not contain a certificate and it is only accompanying the same this does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of the Rule. His further contention is that the language of the certificate annexed with the review petition is not the same as is provided under the Rule. He relies upon the judgment reported in Bashir Ahmed Dar Vs State and others, 1985 SLJ 100 wherein this Court held that Rule 66 {Rule 51(old)} is mandatory and non compliance of the same renders the review petition in-competent. In the above referred case the review petition was not accompanied with any certificate. However, in the present case there is a certificate though not made part of the review petition, but attached to the same.

I have gone through the certificate duly signed by Mr. L.K.Sharma. The intent and purpose of the Rule is that the Advocate should formulate an opinion regarding the existence of ground for review, keeping in view the limited scope of the review proceedings under law. I am satisfied that appending the certificate with the review petition even on a separate sheet and a little variance in the text of the certificate as contained in the Rule does not render the review incompetent as it substantially complies the rule. The preliminary objection is thus rejected.

Now I take up the grounds of review in seriatim:-

GROUND No. 1.

It is submitted that there were as many as 8 respondents in the appeal and without issuing notices to all the respondents and serving them, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document