HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU

MCC No. 218/2019[CM No. 395/2019]
in OWP No. 101/2019
CM No. 5073/2019

Pronounced on:- 18.09.2019

Kishori Lal Gaind and another …Petitioner(s)

Through: Ms. Deepali Arora, Advocate
vs.

Vaibhav Mehra …Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

SINDHU SHARMA, J

1. This petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 24.01.2019 passed by

this Court in OWP No. 101/2019 whereby the Additional District Judge

(Matrimonial Cases), Jammu was directed to decide the petition under Guardian

and SectionWards Act as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months.

2. In paragraph 1 of the petition, petitioners seek review of the order only to the

extent of „time frame‟ in the said order. However, in paragraph 2(g) of the

petition, it is stated, that the order passed in OWP No. 101/2019 is being

challenged by the petitioners on the grounds that the order has been passed in

gross violation of law and without any opportunity of being heard granted to the

petitioners, and that this petition has been filed only to harass and pressurize

them.

3. Preliminary objections have been filed by the respondent. Mr. Anil Sethi,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the very outset, submitted that
2 MCC No. 218/2019

since this review petition is not in terms of Rule 66 of the High Court Rules,

1999, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. It is also submitted by him that all the grounds raised in the petition can only be

construed as grounds of appeal. Since the petitioners are unable to show any

error apparent on the face of record, this petition be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Petition for review of the judgment can only be filed in terms of Rules 65 and

66 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999.

7. Rules 65 and 66 are reproduced as under:

“65. Application for review of Judgment.- The Court may review

its judgment or order but no application for review shall be

entertained except on the ground mentioned in order XLVII Rule I

of the Code.

66. (1) An application for review shall set forth the grounds, on

which a review is sought, plainly and concisely. It shall be signed

by a counsel and shall contain a certificate by an Advocate of the

Court that it is supported by proper grounds in the following form,

namely “I …..Advocate for the above named………. petitioner do

hereby certify that I have perused the Judgment and the relevant

record of the case and in my opinion the grounds contained in the

petition are good and sufficient for the review sought. “No such

application shall be entertained by the Court without the aforesaid

certificate

8. Rule 66 states that no such application for review shall be entertained by the

court without the certificate filed by the advocate. Perusal of the petition

reveals, it only contained an affidavit in support of the petition. No such

certificate in terms of Rule 66 has been annexed with the file. Similar question
3 MCC No. 218/2019

had been aroused for consideration in SectionAli Mohammad Wani vs Qazi Abdul

Rashid, 1999 SLJ 56 where Rule 51(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Rules, 1975 with regard to application for review of the judgment was

considered by the Court and this Court has held in paragraph No. 8 of the

judgment as under:

“The Rule provides that incase aforementioned prescribed certificate is

not appended or attached or placed with the petition/application, court

shall not entertain the review petition/application. The Rule is couched

in mandatory form. In absence of the certificate the court is barred to

entertain the review. In Bashir Ahmad Dar Vs. State and others, SLJ

1985 JK 100, the D. B. of this court observed.

“….The language of Rule 51 is mandatory and it is ordered by

this Rule that “no such application shall be entertained by the

court without the aforesaid certificate.” The form of the

certificate is also prescribed by the Rule. We, therefore, are

not inclined to entertain this review petition because it does

bear the certificate of the Advocate as required by Rule 51 of

the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules. The petition is,

therefore, dismissed….”

9. Since the language of Rule 51(2) of the JK High Court Rules, 1975 and the

Rule 66 of the High Court Rules, 1999 is the same, therefore, this judgment

applies squarely to the facts of the case in hand as the Rule 51(2) has been held

mandatory in nature.

10. Therefore, in view of the fact that this petition is not accompanied by a

certificate of the advocate in terms of Rule 66 of the JK High Court Rules,

1999, this petition is dismissed. Otherwise also the ground of challenge as

urged by the petitioners in the petition can only construed as ground of appeal

and can be raised in the appellate forum only as held in ‘State of JK Vs.
4 MCC No. 218/2019

Govt. Handloom Silk Weaving Factory connected matters, ‘2016(11)

SLJ 651’. Since there is no error apparent on the face of record, therefore, there

is no ground to warrant review of the order.

11. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is without any merit and is, accordingly,

dismissed alongwith connected CMs.

(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
Jammu
18.09.2019
Rakesh

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

RAKESH KUMAR
2019.09.19 15:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document