Sheeraz Ahmad Sheikh @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors

The Civil 2nd Appeal bearing No. 25/2018, filed on behalf of the petitioner herein was dismissed by this Court on 18.09.2018. In terms of the instant petition it is prayed that the judgment passed in CSA No.25/2018 may be reviewed, amongst others, on the following grounds:-

" a. That the substantial question of law formulated by the review petitioner/appellant are substantial question of law and have been overlooked by the Court while rendering the judgment under review.

b. That there is an error apparent on the fact of record inasmuch as substantial questions of law set out in the para 9 of the memo of appeal have not been considered in right perspective and the court has opined that no substantial question of law were raised without spelling out the reasons for not taking the substantial question of law set out in the para 9 of the memo of appeal as the substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 100 read with Order XLVII Code of Civil Procedure.

c. That the court though not admitting the CSA and formulating the substantial questions of law, has as a bare look at the judgment under review would reveal, decided the civil second appeal after elaborate discussion on merits; that in facts and circumstances of the case, the civil second appeal has been decided in a manner as if the substantial questions of law were formulated and the court was deliberating on such substantial questions of law; that deciding the civil second appeal after elaborate discussion on merits without formulating the substantial questions of law has deprived the appellant of valuable right to put forth his case on the substantial question of law and convince the court that the substantial questions of law were to be answered in favour of the review petitioner/appellant; that this is an error apparent on the fact of record within the meaning of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and the review petitioner/appellant is within his rights to seek review of the judgment in question.

d. That the court has first concluded that " no case is made out for admission" and thereafter proceeded to observe that" no substantial questions of law needs to be formulated for consideration"; that the court therefore has in effect dismissed the civil second appeal by not admitting it and thereafter came to the conclusion that no substantial questions were raised ; that the sequence of conclusion drawn by the court is by itself an error apparent on the face of record and a " sufficient reasons within meaning of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant review"."

While learned counsel for the petitioner was being heard, Mr. Qayoom, appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and invited the attention of this Court towards the dismissal of SWP No. 2492/2018 captioned Sheeraz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Commissioner Secretary to Government, Education Department & Ors. on 26.10.2018. The said petition has been filed after passing of the judgment dated 18.09.2018, under review. In terms of said SWP No.2492/2018, the petitioner had sought indulgence of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir. The said petition has been dismissed on 26.10.2018 with the following observations:-

"...Viewed in the context of what has been said and done above, no ground is made out for showing indulgence with the impugned order, as a corollary to which, the writ petition is dismissed along-with connected MP(s). However, the respondent No.4 shall ensure the execution of the judgment and decree dated 18th of October, 2017, passed by the civil Court, as upheld by the 1st as also the 2nd Appellate Court, in its all the fours. Mr. Shah, the learned Additional Advocate General, shall ask the Zonal Education Officer, Pulwama/respondent No.4 to complete the exercise within two weeks from today, till then the withdrawal order dated 11th of October, 2018, shall not be given effect."

On the examination of the material on record as also admitted by the petitioner herein, CSA No. 25/2018 has already been decided by the Court while a finding returned that the case is not made out for admission of the appeal. The petitioner, in terms of the present petition, has shown dissatisfaction regarding the opinion framed by the Court that no substantial question of law emerged and has contended that the memo of appeal has not been considered in right perspective. The opinion, so framed, according to the petitioner, is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other precedents available on the subject. I am afraid to accept that the contention so raised could be made base for review of the judgment already passed in CSA No.25/2018.

In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 1650), it has been enumerated by his lordship:-

"... that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise.

Accordingly, I do not find any ground is made out for review of the judgment/order dated 18.09.2018 passed in CSA No.25/2018. The review petition, as such, is held liable for dismissal, as such is dismissed.