Decided on March 01,1999

Ali Mohd Wani Appellant
Qazi Ab Rashid Respondents


- (1.) IN civil Revision petition 33/96 titled Ali Mohmmad Wani Vs. Qazi Abdul Rashid, Single Bench of this court presided over by Honâ„¢ble Justice A.Q. Parray passed the following order: - Mr. H.I. Hussain This Revision is delayed by one year and has been filed only to protract the proceedings pending in the court below. So it is being dismissed for want of prosecution and being time barred. Record of the file be sent back alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned to records.  Srinagar Sd/ -A.Q. Parray -J 5.12.1996
(2.) PETITIONER through counsel has moved the instant motion for review of the above order. The grounds for review put forth are that the petitionerâ„¢s counsel reached late in High Court at 11.45 A.M., when the case had been already taken up and above order of dismissal passed. The observation of the Honâ„¢ble Court that revision petition has been filed beyond one year, is not based on facts, in so far as the order of District Judge Srinagar sought to be revised in the revision petition, is dated 6.4.1996 and the revision petition has been filed in the High Court on 1.7.96 well within period of limitation prescribed by Rule 50(2) of High court Rules. This observation of the High Court is an error apparent on the face of record, hence the order required to be reviewed.
(3.) COUNSEL for respondents, Mr. H.I. Hussain submits that as the order sought to be reviewed has been passed by Honâ„¢ble Justice A.Q. Parray, who has ceased to be the Judge of the court, therefore, the application cannot be heard by this Bench. However, this contention is not tenable in so far as the case has been assigned to this Bench under the orders of Honâ„¢ble Justice pursuant to the orders passed thereto under Rule 51(5) of J&K High court Rules. Mr. Nehvi, submits that as the court has dismissed the revision for being time barred on account of an error apparent on record, therefore, order merits to be reviewed. Mr. H.I. Hussain, counsel for respondents submits that order in question is in two parts. The dismissal of the revision petition is based not only on ground of revision being time barred, but also for non -appearance and default in prosecution by the revision petitioner. The counsel concedes that the observation of the court that the revision petition is time barred, is not supported by the facts of the case. Instead the revision against order dated: 6.4.1996 of District Judge, Srinagar filed on 1.7.1996 is within 90 days prescribed period as laid down by Rule 52(2) of the High Court Rules.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.