Srinagar- The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Friday underlined that the power of review can be exercised only to correct an apparent mistake on record and not to substitute or re-appreciate a judicial view already taken.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani rejected the review plea filed by petitioners—Shahjehan Rather and others—who had sought reconsideration of a judgment dated 9 April this year, dismissing their writ petition challenging a 2021 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu.
The petitioners contended that their submissions were not adequately considered and argued that the authorities’ failure to specifically deny certain averments amounted to an admission. However, the court observed that the issues raised in the review petition had already been examined and decided in the original judgment.
This Court while rendering the judgment under review in paras (13) and (15), the Bench said, considered the contentions of the petitioners regarding the casual assignees.
The Court also noted that the affidavit filed by the authorities in compliance with the order dated October 1, 2024, disclosed details of 18 persons working pursuant to court orders, which matched the information placed on record by the petitioners through the Right to Information Act.
The Court held that a review cannot be used to re-agitate settled issues or to correct what a party perceives as an erroneous interpretation.
“The issue as to whether this Court has correctly interpreted the stand of either of the parties cannot be a subject matter of review,” the Bench said. The scope of review, the Bench said, is very limited in nature, and cannot be extended to the extent of rehearing the issues, already considered and decided by the Court.
“Even if it is assumed that the view taken by this Court is not correct, still it cannot be a ground for review. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments are insufficient for exercising jurisdiction of review,” the court said, adding, “The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such power can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of such power.”
===
Justice Ensured
