BASANTI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the currency of this petition, Harneet Kour and Moti Lal, herein petitioners, have sought the review of the order dated 31 -05 -1991 passed by the Court in so far as it relate to the petitioners and restoration of the petition for granting same relief as has been granted to the other petitioners vide aforesaid judgment in writ petitions, SWP No. 500/87 and SWP No. 851/88, inter alia on the grounds that without their instructions for not pressing the petition, their counsel stated before the Court to have no instructions from the petitioners to pros ecute the petition and in that view of the matter, the petition from these petitioners came to be dismissed by the Court, which amounted to an error and necessitates the Courts interference in exercise of its review jurisdiction.

(2.) IN controverting the petitioners contention, objections came to be filed by Mr. M.I. Qadri, Sr. AAG appearing for the State in submitting that there is no ground, much less sufficient ground, carved out by the petitioners for review of the order through judicial apparatus. His further submission is that neither any new and important matter has been discovered which was not brought to the notice of the court nor any evidence procured nor there is any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, which warrants the indulgence of the Court. According to Mr. Qadri, there are even no sufficient reasons made out for the review of the order as the petitioners were duly represented by an advocate, who withdrew his engagement by stating no instruction from his clients to prosecute the petition. Lastly, it is submitted that Mr. Wani was duly appointed advocate and had an authority in terms of Vakalatnama from the petitioners. There is no error apparent on the face of the record requiring Courts interference for reviewing the order.

(3.) HEARD , considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the relevant provisions of law touching the matter in controversy.