Source:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of  Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, held that a statutory tribunal’s power of review is confined to the same limitations as a civil court under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC). 

• This was held in the matter of Ravinder Singh & Ors. v. Om Prakash & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Ravinder Singh & Ors. v. Om Prakash & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• Ravinder Singh and others, residents of Karan Nagar, Jammu for over 40 years, filed a writ petition against Om Parkash, who owned land measuring 08 marlas and 24 sq. ft. under khasra No. 95 in the same locality. 
• Om Parkash obtained permission from Jammu Municipal Corporation on 26th  November 2010 to construct a ground, first, and second floor building with specific allocations - 1150 sq. ft. residential on ground floor, 649 sq. ft. residential and 501 sq. ft. commercial on first floor, and 1150 sq. ft. residential on second floor. 
• The sanctioned plan mandated a front setback of 40 ft. and rear setback of 20 ft., with the construction intended for mixed residential-commercial use as per zoning regulations. 
• Om Parkash constructed the building in violation of the approved plan, using RCC columns to create large commercial halls instead of the permitted residential structure, covering 1856 sq. ft. for commercial use on ground floor against the allowed 1150 sq. ft. 
• On the first floor, he covered 1856 sq. ft. for commercial purposes instead of the sanctioned 649 sq. ft. residential and 501 sq. ft. commercial space, and constructed an unauthorized 410 sq. ft. projection slab. 
• Municipal authorities served notices dated 12th November 2011 under Sections 7(1) and 12(1) of the J&K Control of Building Operation Act, 1988, followed by another notice dated 31st July 2012 under Section 7(3) directing demolition within five days. 
•  Om Parkash challenged the demolition notices before the J&K Special Tribunal, which initially dismissed his appeal on 11th February 2013, holding that the violations were major and non-condonable under applicable regulations. 
• Despite no statutory provision for rehearing, Om Parkash filed an application for rehearing, leading the Tribunal to pass a fresh order dated 14th March2013 modifying its earlier decision. 
• The Tribunal directed municipal authorities to reassess violations against applicable norms rather than strictly adhering to the original permission, considering existing building lines and allowing fresh action against unauthorized constructions in the neighbourhood. 
• During the pendency of proceedings, Om Parkash filed a counter writ petition alleging that the original petitioners had also raised constructions without proper building permissions under municipal laws. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was filed merely on apprehension, with no actual adverse action initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the Tribunal's order dated 14th March 2013. 
• The Court noted that petitioners lacked locus standi since they were not parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal and had no legal or statutory rights infringed by the impugned order. 
• The Court found the writ petition premature, observing that "the writ, on mere apprehension, is not maintainable, unless there is material on record to indicate that the adverse action is imminent or there is real threat of invasion of rights of the petitioners." 
• The Court established that tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act possess review powers analogous to civil courts under Section 22(3)(f), subject to limitations enumerated in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. 
• The Court clarified that tribunals can review decisions only on specific grounds including discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient cause, and cannot correct erroneous orders under the guise of review. 
• The Court observed that the Tribunal was justified in reviewing its earlier order based on newly discovered evidence, specifically photographs showing comparative setbacks in the vicinity that were not produced during initial proceedings. 
• The Court distinguished between procedural review (for fundamental procedural lapses) and merit review (confined to statutory grounds), noting that the Tribunal had not committed any procedural illegality warranting intervention. 
• The Court dismissed the main writ petition for lack of maintainability while directing municipal authorities to reassess violations afresh, with liberty to take action against any unauthorized constructions in accordance with applicable law after affording opportunity of hearing to affected parties.

What is Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC?

• Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the statutory provision that empowers courts to review their own judgments and orders, providing an exceptional remedy where traditional appellate channels may not be available or adequate. 
• The provision establishes three specific and exhaustive grounds upon which a court may exercise its review jurisdiction - discovery of new and important matter or evidence not previously available despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason as may be deemed appropriate by the court. 
• The rule confers the right upon any person who considers himself aggrieved by a decree or order to seek review, whether such decree or order allows an appeal but no appeal has been preferred, or whether no appeal is permitted at all, thereby providing a safety valve for judicial errors. 
• For claiming review on the ground of discovery of new evidence, the applicant must demonstrate that such matter or evidence was not within his knowledge at the time of the original proceedings and could not have been produced despite exercising due diligence, ensuring that the provision is not misused for belated presentation of available evidence. 
• The concept of "error apparent on the face of the record" refers to patent and self-evident errors that do not require elaborate reasoning or lengthy examination of evidence to detect, distinguishing it from errors of judgment that require detailed analysis and are not subject to review jurisdiction. 
• The phrase "any other sufficient reason" is interpreted restrictively and must be construed ejusdem generis with the other specified grounds, preventing arbitrary exercise of review powers and ensuring that review remains an exceptional remedy rather than a substitute for appeal. 
• The rule specifically provides for review in cases where no appeal is allowed, recognising that certain judicial orders may not be subject to appellate scrutiny yet may contain manifest errors requiring correction through the review mechanism. 
• The Explanation to the rule categorically excludes the reversal or modification of legal principles by superior courts in other cases as grounds for review, maintaining the finality of judgments and preventing endless litigation based on evolving jurisprudence. 
• Order XLVII Rule 1 embodies the principle that review jurisdiction is not an alternative mode of appeal and cannot be exercised to re-examine the merits of a case or to correct mere errors of judgment, but is confined to rectifying patent illegalities or considering genuinely new material that could not have been presented earlier despite reasonable efforts.