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
Live LawDismissing a review petition filed by contractors who challenged an earlier order directing them to pay an additional sum for work they had undertaken the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that a court's power to review its judgments is not meant to serve as an appeal in disguise. 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. 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. 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 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.
History of this topic
Can't Entertain Appeal Disguised As Review: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Challenge To Maintenance Order
Live Law
Review Provision Is Not To Scrutinize The Correctness Of Decision : Supreme Court
Live Law
A Third Party Review Petition In Supreme Court Seeks Review of Its Order Regarding Ex Gratia Compensation to Families of Covid Victims
Live Law
SC dismisses review plea in DLF case
The Hindu
Authority of a Lawyer to Compromise on behalf of Client, Supreme Court reiterates the principles [Read the Judgment]
Live Law
Authority of a Lawyer to Compromise on behalf of Client, Supreme Court reiterates the principles [Read the Judgment]
Live LawDiscover Related