Srinagar, Dec 26: 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, said the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Friday.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Muhammad Yousuf Wani held this while rejecting a review plea with the observation that issues already considered and decided by the court could not be re-agitated.
In their plea, the aggrieved persons were seeking review of the court’s judgment dated April 9, 2025, whereby their petition challenging the order of July 26, 2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu, had been dismissed.
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.
In response to the petitioners’ contentions, the court noted that the issues raised in the review petition had already been examined and decided in the original judgement passed by it.
“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 court said.
The court 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.
A review cannot be used to re-agitate settled issues or to correct what a party perceives as an erroneous interpretation, it said.
The court pointed out that the issue as to whether the court had correctly interpreted the stand of either of the parties could not be a subject matter of review.
“The scope of review is very limited in nature, and cannot be extended to the extent of rehearing the issues already considered and decided by the court,” it said.
The court observed that even if it was assumed that the view taken by the court was not correct, still it could not be a ground for review.
A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments is insufficient for exercising jurisdiction of review, it said.
“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,” the court said.
It dismissed the review petition, saying it did not find any error apparent on the face of the record which would warrant the exercise of jurisdiction of review.
