Mohammad Yaqoob Wani vs Union Territory Of JK & Anr

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J

CM No. 5556/2021:

This application is filed on behalf of the applicant/ Petitioner seeking condonation of delay that has occasioned in the filing of the accompanying Review Petition, being RP No. 83/2021, against the Judgment dated 22nd of September, 2020 passed in SWP No. 822/2003.

On the set of facts and the grounds urged, coupled with submissions made at the Bar, the instant application is allowed and the delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned. Review Petition is taken on board today itself. CM disposed of accordingly.

RP No. 83/2021:

By this motion, the applicant/ Petitioner is seeking review of Judgment dated 22nd of September, 2020 passed in SWP No. 822/2020; in terms whereof the Petition of the applicant/ Petitioner stands dismissed.

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel representing the applicant/ Petitioner and have considered the matter.

At the outset, what requires to be stated is that in the instant Review Petition, the applicant/ Petitioner has touched the merits of the case, which, in a Review Petition, is unwarranted as per well settled position of law. The grounds urged in the Review Petition have already been decided and findings returned thereon by this Court and, if the applicant/ Petitioner was aggrieved of the said findings, he ought to have availed the remedy under law for challenging the same before the appropriate Court. In fact, the instant Review Petition, on grounds enumerated therein, appears to be a disguised appeal. The grounds taken by the applicant/ Petitioner are either that the findings recorded by the Court are not legally tenable, or that the same are perverse, or that the same are unacceptable. A judgment may be wrong, erroneous, incorrect, perverse, legally untenable, etcetera, etcetera, but, the only course available for the aggrieved party is to go in appeal against the said Judgment before the appropriate forum. Such grounds do not constitute errors of fact or of law on the face of the record as would call for a review.

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 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 applicant/ 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 applicant/ Petitioner is challenging the Judgment passed by this Court which is under review.

Given the above position, we do not find any error, apparent on the face of the record, in the Judgment dated 22nd of September, 2020 passed by this Court in SWP No.822/2003, as would warrant its recall on review. It being so, this Review Petition is found to be without any merit, as a sequel thereto, same shall stand dismissed, along with any connected CM(s). Interim direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.