Mohammad Maqbool Najar vs State Of J&K And Others

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J

CONDL No.191/2016:

This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of twenty (20) days in filing the review petition against the order dated 24th of October, 2016 passed in LPAOW No.09/2016; MP No.01/2016.

On the set of facts and the grounds urged, the instant application is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

CONDL disposed of as above. Registry to diarize and assign the number to the review petition, which is taken on board, today itself.

RPLPA No._______/2020:

Through the medium of the instant review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of order dated 24th of October, 2016 passed in LPAOW No.09/2016, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.

We have perused the order dated 24th of October, 2016 and have also gone through the contents of the review petition.

At the outset, what requires to be stated is that it is well settled legal position that 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. It is not open to the Court, dealing with review of its decision, to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at, on appreciation of evidence and after hearing the rival parties, cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The power of review has to be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection, that too, only in exceptional cases. This power is exercised when some mistake or error, apparent on the face of the record, is found. A mistake or an error, apparent on the face of the record, means a mistake or an error which is, prima facie, visible and does not require any detailed examination. Such an error must strike one on mere looking at the record and should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may, conceivably, be two opinions. In the present case, the review petitioner has not been able to point out any error, apparent on the face of the record, but, on the contrary, under the guise of the instant review petition, the review petitioner is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review.

In the above background, we do not find any error, apparent on the face of the record, in the order dated 24th of October, 2016, passed by this Court in LPAOW No. 09/2016; MP No.01/2016, as would warrant its recall on review. It being so, this review petition is found to be meritless and, as a sequel thereto, same shall stand dismissed, alongwith all connected IA(s).

A copy of this order be forthwith sent to the learned counsel for the parties through virtual mode.