HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR RPSW No. 12/2018 in SWP No.887/2018 Date of Order: 9^th of August, 2018.

Mohammad Jamal Shergujri Vs.

State of JK & Ors.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s): Mr M. M. Dar, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s):

i) Whether approved for repor ting in Yes/No Law Journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication in Press: Yes/No

01. By medium of this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of final judgment of this Court dated 26^th of April, 2018, passed in SWP No. 887/2018; MP No.01/2018, in terms whereof, this Court, on consideration of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, observed as under:

Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner is time barred and cannot survive with reference to application of principle of delay and latches, otherwise also the petitioner has remained satisfied with his appointment and subsequent promotions made from time to time till he retired in the year 2006.

In the above background, the relief prayed for being hit by the principle of delay and latches, which forms a ground for dismissal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limini.=

02. What requires to be stated, at the outset, is that in the instant review petition, the petitioner has touched the merits of the case, which, in a review petition, is unwarranted as per law. It is well settled that the scope of review of an order is very limited and it cannot be a forum to re-argue the matter already decided by the Court. A review cannot also be used as a tool for changing the opinion/ view of the Court. In a review petition, it is only an error, apparent on the face of the record, which can be considered and gone into by the Court.

03. Law on the subject is no more res integra. The Apex court of the country, in case titled 8Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors.9 reported in 8(2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 3209, while dealing with a similar issue, held as under:

“13. Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. This Court, in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India & Ors. [1980 (Supp) SCC 562], held as under:

12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v.

Sheikh Habib this Court observed :

1. …..A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility…. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.=

15. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. This Court, in Parsion Devi & Ors. v. Sumitri Devi & Ors., [JT 1997 (8) SC

480 : (1997) 8 SCC 715], held as under:

7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. this Court opined:

11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 8error apparent on the face of the record9). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not pe