1. In civil Revision petition 33/96 titled Ali Mohmmad Wani Vs. Qazi Abdul Rashid, Single Bench of this court presided over by Hon™ble Justice A.Q. Parray passed the following order: -

Mr. H.I. Hussain

This Revision is delayed by one year and has been filed only to protract the proceedings pending in the court below. So it is being dismissed for want of prosecution and being time barred. Record of the file be sent back alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned to records.

Srinagar Sd/-A.Q. Parray-J

5.12.1996

2. Petitioner through counsel has moved the instant motion for review of the above order. The grounds for review put forth are that the petitioner™s counsel reached late in High Court at 11.45 A.M., when the case had been already taken up and above order of dismissal passed. The observation of the Hon™ble Court that revision petition has been filed beyond one year, is not based on facts, in so far as the order of District Judge Srinagar sought to be revised in the revision petition, is dated 6.4.1996 and the revision petition has been filed in the High Court on 1.7.96 well within period of limitation prescribed by Rule 50(2) of High court Rules. This observation of the High Court is an error apparent on the face of record, hence the order required to be reviewed.

3. Counsel for respondents, Mr. H.I. Hussain submits that as the order sought to be reviewed has been passed by Hon™ble Justice A.Q. Parray, who has ceased to be the Judge of the court, therefore, the application cannot be heard by this Bench. However, this contention is not tenable in so far as the case has been assigned to this Bench under the orders of Hon™ble Justice pursuant to the orders passed thereto under Rule 51(5) of J&K High court Rules.

Mr. Nehvi, submits that as the court has dismissed the revision for being time barred on account of an error apparent on record, therefore, order merits to be reviewed.

4. Mr. H.I. Hussain, counsel for respondents submits that order in question is in two parts. The dismissal of the revision petition is based not only on ground of revision being time barred, but also for non-appearance and default in prosecution by the revision petitioner. The counsel concedes that the observation of the court that the revision petition is time barred, is not supported by the facts of the case. Instead the revision against order dated: 6.4.1996 of District Judge, Srinagar filed on 1.7.1996 is within 90 days prescribed period as laid down by Rule 52(2) of the High Court Rules.

5. The counsel for respondents contends that the review petition is incompetent, in so far as the order sought to be reviewed also incorporate dismissal of revision for want of prosecution. As per applicant™s own case as placed before the court in the application for review, the revision petitioner™s counsel was not present when the case was called. The remedy was to seek restoration of the revision petition rather than review of the order. Petitioner has not even made out any cause muchless sufficient cause for his absence on the material date and time before the court. Besides the counsel also submits that the application for review is not supported by the prescribed certificate of the Advocate.

6. From record it is seen that revision has been dismissed not only for delay but also for non-prosecution. Non-appearance and non-prosecution of the revision petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be subject to review though setting aside of order for dismissal of non-prosecution could have been solicited and prayed for through the proper restoration motion and that is not the case here. Even so no sufficient cause has been made out to warrant setting aside of the order.

7. Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules inter-alia provide that an application for review of judgment or order shall contain a certificate by the Advocate of the Court in the prescribed form as under: -

I....Advocate for the above named.....petitioner do hereby certify that I have per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document