HC Has Duty To Maintain Accurate Records Within Its Jurisdiction To Ensure Justice Prevails In Accordance With Law: J&K High Court
Reiterating that the High Court, as a court of record, derives its power to review judgments under Article 215 of the Constitution of India the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasized its obligation and duty to maintain accurate records within its jurisdiction, ensuring justice prevails in accordance with the law.Clarifying the mandate and obligation of the High Court as...
Reiterating that the High Court, as a court of record, derives its power to review judgments under Article 215 of the Constitution of India the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasized its obligation and duty to maintain accurate records within its jurisdiction, ensuring justice prevails in accordance with the law.
Clarifying the mandate and obligation of the High Court as envisaged under Article 215 Justice Javed Iqbal Wani opined,
“It would be appropriate to mention here that power to review its judgments by High Court is derived from Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which provides that every High Court shall be a court of record, and as such, the High Court has inherent power to correct its records, and has an obligation, rather duty, to maintain correct records within its jurisdiction in accordance with law”
Background:
The court was hearing a review petition arising from a judgment passed by the High Court on October 18, 2023. The respondent, Dr. Abid Hussain, had initially filed an execution petition to enforce a 2008 trial court judgment in his favor. This judgment had set aside his termination from service and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. However, the executing court dismissed the execution petition in 2021. Subsequently, the High Court reversed this dismissal, instructing the executing court to proceed with enforcement.
The petitioners, the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, filed the instant review petition, contending that the decree was now unexecutable due to the respondent's superannuation and age, which was allegedly overlooked in the earlier judgment.
Court Observations:
Upon scrutinising the contentions Justice Wani dismissed the review petition emphasising the limited scope of review under Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code. The court highlighted that the review mechanism cannot be used as an appeal in disguise and observed,
"Thus, in this view of the matter therefore as well, it can safely be said that there could hardly be any justification in filing the instant review petition other than delaying the execution of the judgment and decree dated 16th October 2008 by the judgment debtors petitioners herein."
Referring to Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the court reaffirmed that the High Court's authority to review its judgments stems from its status as a court of record. This constitutional provision vests the High Court with inherent powers to rectify its records and imposes a corresponding obligation, even a duty, to ensure that its records are accurate and maintained in accordance with the law, the court elucidated.
Pointing out the delay in execution the court remarked,
"It is significant to note here that more than 16 years have passed since the passing of the judgment and decree supra, and the decree holder respondent herein is yet to reap the benefits of the same. Had the judgment debtors petitioners herein executed the judgment and decree at the relevant point of time, the situation now raised in the instant review petition would not have arisen."
Noting that the petitioners had already consulted their counsel on filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was deemed unviable the court concluded that the review petition appeared to lack bona fide grounds.
In view of the same the Court dismissed the Review petition.
Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Abid Hussain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 309