Review Of Judgements Is An Exception To General Rule, Parties Can't Be Permitted To Seek Re-Hearing Under Garb Of Review: J&K High Court

Clarifying the limitations of the court after the pronouncement of a judgment and its powers to review the same Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“The Court becomes functus officio, i.e., ceases to have control over the matter and the judgment or order pronounced and made becomes final and cannot be altered, modified, varied or changed, however, the review of a judgment or order is an exception to this general rule and the doctrine can be invoked and allowed in certain circumstances and on certain grounds only"

The court made these observations while hearing a Revision Petition filed under Rule 65 of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999, seeking a review of a judgment passed in a Writ Petition.

Background of the Case:

The case involved Respondent contractors who had been awarded certain construction works by the Review Petitioner government. The cost of the project escalated beyond the initial estimate, and the contractors sought post-facto sanction for the increased amount. While a part of the increased cost was approved, there remained a balance amount outstanding.

The contractors approached the High Court through a writ petition, seeking direction for payment of the remaining amount. The court, based on the arguments presented, directed the government to release the balance amount.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, UT of J&K filed a review petition and argued that it had not approved the additional expenditure and that a crucial communication they had sent to the government, disowning liability for the extra cost, was not considered by the court during the initial hearing.

Court Observations:

Justice Wani, while acknowledging the concept of review, emphasized that this power has limitations. The bench explained,

“A right of review, in law, has been held to be both substantive and procedural and as a matter of procedure, every Court can correct an inadvertent or unintentional error, which has crept in the judgment or order either due to the procedural defect or mathematical and clerical error or by misrepresentation or fraud of a party to the proceedings, however, the power of review vested in a Court is not inherent power and has to be conferred on a Court either expressly or by necessary implication”

Deliberating further on the subject the bench cited "Inderchand Jain vs. Motilal" and "Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawar," which establish that review is meant to rectify errors apparent on the record or based on the discovery of new and important evidence, not for presenting fresh arguments or challenging the court's conclusions.

In this case, the bench found that the review petitioners had the opportunity to present their case during the writ petition hearing but failed to do so. The arguments raised in the review petition essentially amounted to a re-hearing of the case, which is not permissible under the garb of review, the bench stated.

In light of the legal principles enunciated and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court dismissed the review petition, reinforcing the finality of its earlier judgment.

Case Title: UT of J&K Vs Ram Rattan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment