RIAZ JAN MAST Vs. ASIF JAVID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRICT Judge, Srinagar passed an order on 29.2.2002 holding petitioners before District Judge and respondents before this Court entitled to the possession and to inmedacy of right of possession of residential/commercial building situated at Hari Singh High Street except the shop used to conduct business of 'M/s Metal Mart'. With regard to other properties the District Judge held that the party has no claim to actual possession on merit and left same for determination in regular suit. The proceedings have been taken and the order passed under J&K; Succession (Property Protection) Act 1977. Against this order revision was filed in this Court. By a detailed order of January 9, 2002 revision petition was dismissed as not merited after the above order of the District Judge was found within para -meters of law and jurisdiction and as one covered by the prescribed statutory procedure.

(2.) THE petitioner respondent to the main proceedings before District Judge did not stop their and he has filed this review petition. The review petition against the above order of January 9, 2002 of this Court is moved to allege that the order suffers from mistake and error apparent on the face of the record. Tamleek -namah' and subsequent 'sale deed', referred in the order of District Judge as also this Court in revision is stated not to affect the title and nature of possession of the review petitioner and by placing contra interpretation on these documents by the courts, an error is committed. The other ground taken is that the finding and observation of this Court that pendency of the suit before the courts below and issuance of interim injunction by the Subcourts cannot bar the jurisdiction of the District Court to proceed with the matter under Succession (Property Protection) Act, is 'grossly misconceived.'' As the case is decided on mis -appreciation of facts touching jurisdiction, it has lead to failure of justice and by the observation of the High Court that it would not examine the issue beyond para -meters set for revision, error has crept in to be reveiwed in review proceedings. The other aspects of the lis like pendency of suits interse parties before Subordinate courts, the litigation between the Bank and the parties and respondents having filed a suit for partition, possession, and injunction, have not been considered, thereby an error is committed which is apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) IT would be seen that the grounds taken in the revision touch and embrace the merits of the matter and do not answer description of errors or mistake apparent on record so as to attract review proceedings. What the petitioner is trying to do is to re -agitate and re -open his case on all aspects when the case so far as proceedings under Succession (Property Protection) Act 1977 are concerned stand finally disposed of and the litigation in that regard and to that extent has attained finality with the dismissal of the revision by the High Court and dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court.