Bashir Ahmad Lone vs The State and Others

A.B. Qadir Parray, J.—This review petition filed against the order of this Court dated 9-8-1995 passed in SWP No. 545 of 1992 is being

dismissed on the count that same is not in accordance with the J. & K. High Court Rules governing the procedure for filing such review petitions.

It may be noted that Rule 51 of the J.& K. High Court Rules of 1975 as amended till date do envisage:

Application for review of judgment.

(I) The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned in Order

XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code.

(2) 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, name- ly:--

1..... 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 review application shall be entertained by the Court without the aforesaid certificate.

So in light of the mandatory provisions of procedure laid down for entertainment of such application, I do find that the application under

consideration is in accordance with the procedure and the rules and does not contain the requisite mandatory certificate of the Advocate who has

filed the review petition. As such this application for review is dismissed as being not maintainable.

It may be noted and brought on record that the petitioners in the review petition i.e. the State has not even till date filed their objections in the

main case as because it was considered by this Court that the matter, controversy involved in the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage

after objections were filed. This direction was not responded to by the respondents i.e. present petitioners and instead adjournments were sought

by Mr. Kotwal, the then Government Advocate. Finally Court was constrained to pass the order impugned, of which review is sought.

It may not be out of place to mention that the petitioners come and ask for equity from the Court, but it must be known that he who seeks equity

must do equity and he who comes to the Court of equity must conic with clean hands.

Here in the instant case, 1 do not find that the petitioners are entitled to any equity even otherwise, as they are not adhering to the directions

passed by this Court regarding filing of their objections in the main case which has protracted and prolonged the proceedings unnecessarily. So

while dismissing this review petition, I give further two weeks time to respondents/petitioners herein to file objections in the main petition, failing

which necessary orders shall follow.