J. and K. Bank vs Mohd. Sultan Dar

Bashir A. Kirmani, J.—Through medium of this petition the petitioner-bank seeks review of judgment dated 20-5-2003 passed by a bench

of this Court in civil revision No. 77/ 2002 captioned ""J&K Bank v. Mohd. Sultan Dar"" on the ground that challenges projected by petitioner to

the judgment impugned in revision petition aforesaid were not properly addressed and the controversy involved not considered in proper

perspective. During course of submissions, petitioner's counsel while further elucidating aforesaid grounds has also given the back drop of original

order against which the revision petition was instituted, while counsel for respondents has contended that review petition is not maintainable.

I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. It appears that vide order dated 4th April 2002 the principal District Judge Budgam,

while disposing of an execution petition initiated by petitioner-bank against the respondent judgment debtor for execution of a money decree

dismissed the same along with all connected applications on the ground that the matter squarely fell in the ambit of ""Debt Relief Scheme"" and was

as such not actionable. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner-bank assailed the said order through revision petition No. 77/2002 aforesaid on the

ground that it was illegal and had been passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the prescribed procedure as also that the respondents case

before the trial Court was not covered by aforesaid scheme etc. The revision petition did however not find favour with the revisional Court and

while observing that respondents' case was covered by the aforesaid scheme and order impugned in the revision needed not be disturbed,

dismissed the petition. It is this order that is sought to be reviewed presently.

Law is clear that any person considering himself aggrieved by any decree or order whether appealable or not may seek review thereof on

account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or due to discovery of some new and important matter or evidence which was

not in his knowledge prior to passing of the order; or any other sufficient reason. Instantly however what is pleaded as a ground for review is that

this Court while disposing of earlier revision petition did not appreciate the law properly and came to wrong conclusion regarding applicability of

the scheme in respect of respondent's case. That being so the review petition in effect seeks to re-open the subject-matter of revision petition and

practically seeks re-hearing thereof, which is not within the scope of review proceedings, which in terms of the law aforesaid has to be restricted

only to errors apparent on face of record or discovery of new material etc. Nothing has been stated to point out any error apparent in the records

except for the challenge put forth to the view taken by this Court while disposing of the revision petition, which cannot be allowed only for the

reason that a different view of the matter is possible. So far discovery or any matter or material fact which was not within petitioner's knowledge

prior to the passing of the revisional order is concerned the same has not at all been alleged nor has anything been pleaded or brought on record

which could constitute fresh material for the purpose of reviewing the order passed in revision petition.

That being so, the review petition in hand does not appear to be well founded, and is accordingly dismissed.