The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in a judgment pronounced on October 14, 2025, dismissed a review petition (RP No.60/2024). A Division Bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal Wani and Justice Rahul Bharti affirmed its prior judgment, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by Abdul Haq Banday and another, fundamentally on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed material facts from the court.
The case concerns a dispute over the petitioners’ claim to a share of Nazra-Niaz (offerings) from Asar-e-Sharif, Hazratabad.
Background of the Litigation
The petitioners had initially filed a writ petition, WP(C) No.148/2023, seeking to quash an order dated 20.09.2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the J&K Waqf Board. This order had rejected their claim to the offerings. The petitioners asserted their claim as descendants of a Nishan Dehandah (Ghulam Mohd Banday) and relied heavily on an ex-parte judgment and decree passed in their favour on 23.05.1991.
On 12.02.2024, a single-judge bench (the writ court) allowed their petition, quashed the Waqf Board’s order, and upheld their claim.
This decision was subsequently challenged by respondent 3 in an appeal (LPA No.81/2024). On 28.08.2024, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the writ court’s judgment, and dismissed the petitioners’ writ petition with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
The judgment states the appeal was allowed “fundamentally on the basis of a preliminary objection of respondent 3 herein that the petitioners have had suppressed and concealed the material facts relating to the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 23-05-1991.” Specifically, the petitioners had failed to disclose that the 1991 decree “had been held in-executable by an order of the executing court,” a decision that was subsequently “upheld in terms of order dated 01-06-2005 passed by this Court in civil revision No. 40/2004.”
Grounds for Review
The petitioners filed the present review petition against the Division Bench’s judgment of 28.08.2024. The “moot ground” urged by the petitioners was that the court had “wrongly held the petitioners guilty of suppression of material fact.”
They argued that the 2005 order (in CR No. 40/2004) was not a “material fact” because the 1991 decree was held in-executable only for “non-disclosure of total amount of Nazro-Niaz as well as the ratio of its sharing.” The petitioners contended that these “infirmities stood cured” with the passage of time and by other documents, and therefore the 2005 order had no bearing on the writ petition.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Division Bench, in its 14.10.2025 order, first reiterated the settled principles of law governing review petitions, as enshrined in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and J&K High Court Rules 65 and 66.
The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000), to emphasize that the “power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view” and “cannot be treated an appeal in disguise.”
The Bench also referred to Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat (2021) and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi to highlight the “clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record.” An error apparent, the court noted, must be “evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation.”
Applying these legal standards, the High Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments. The Bench held that the petitioners’ contention of an “error on the face of the record” was “grossly misconceived and a figment of imagination.”
The judgment states: “it is not in dispute that the petitioners herein admittedly concealed and suppressed the fact of filing of said civil revision No. 40/2004 before this Court and decision dated 01-06-2005, rendered therein whereby the order of executing court, holding the decree dated 23-05-1991 earned by the petitioners herein as in-executable was upheld.”
The court observed that this “ought to have been brought into the notice of the writ court by the petitioners, more so, when the petitioners herein have had heavily relied upon the decree dated 23-05-1991.”
The Bench concluded, “Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners herein now that the said fact was not a material fact,” and reaffirmed its original finding that “the said fact is a material one and that had it been brought into the notice of the writ court, same would have affected the decision of the writ Court.”
Finding that the petitioners were “in essence… seeking re-hearing of the LPA under the guise of the instant review petition, which, however, is impermissible in law,” the court held that the judgment under review “does not call for review.”
“Resultantly petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed,” the court ordered.
