Jammu and Kashmir High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Waqf Board Dispute

Court reiterates limits of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that review is not a rehearing of the appeal.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in a significant decision dated October 14, 2025, dismissed the review petition filed by Abdul Haq Banday and another against a judgment previously pronounced in a dispute involving the J&K Waqf Board. The petitioners sought reconsideration of an earlier judgment that dismissed their writ petition challenging the Waqf Board's decision regarding the distribution of Nazrana (offerings) at Asar-e-Sharif Hazratabad.

The Division Bench, comprising Justices Javed Iqbal Wani and Rahul Bharti, concluded that the review petition was impermissible under the law, as it essentially aimed at rehearing the appeal rather than correcting any error apparent on the face of the record. The court reinforced the doctrine of review, stating that it is an exception to the principle that a judgment becomes final once pronounced, and can only be allowed on specific grounds such as discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

The petitioners had originally maintained that their entitlement to a share of Nazrana was unjustly rejected by the Waqf Board. They argued that their claim was upheld in a previous suit with an ex-parte judgment and decree passed in their favor in 1991. However, the judgment was held in-executable by the executing court, a fact which the petitioners failed to disclose in their writ petition, leading to its dismissal by the appellate court. The review petition attempted to argue that this non-disclosure was not material to the lis and should not have impacted the decision of the writ court.

In its order, the court emphasized that the concealment of the civil revision case and its outcome was indeed material, as it directly impacted the petitioners' claim to the Nazrana. The court referred to established legal principles, citing previous Supreme Court judgments, to underline that a review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The court's analysis reinforced that the right of review is both substantive and procedural, but cannot be used to reargue or rehear the original case.

The judgment provides clarity on the scope and limits of review jurisdiction, reiterating that once a judgment is pronounced, the court becomes functus officio and any alteration or modification is only permissible under the strict grounds outlined in statutory provisions. The dismissal of the review petition serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to uphold procedural integrity and the finality of judgments, except under exceptional circumstances.

Bottom Line:

Review petition seeking reconsideration of a judgment is impermissible in law if it essentially aims at re-hearing the appeal rather than correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.

Statutory provision(s):  Section 114, Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Abdul Haq Banday v. Union Territory of J&K, (Jammu And Kashmir)(Srinagar)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2797108