CAT Jammu Rejects Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din’s Review Bid, Finding No Apparent Error To Rehear His Case On Merits

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 5 August 2026 in OA No. 390/2024.

The Tribunal considered the Review Application and the material on record

It found that the applicant had identified neither an error apparent on the face of the record nor new and important evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier.

Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, review is confined to recognized grounds, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient, analogous reason.

Relying on Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, (1999) 9 SCC 596; Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160; Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRs v. Motilal (Dead) through LRs, (2009) 14 SCC 663; and Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Tribunal reiterated that review is not an appeal or a means to obtain a rehearing, reappreciate the matter, or substitute one view for another; the error must be apparent and not require elaborate argument to establish.

The Tribunal examined the grounds and found that they sought reconsideration of findings already reached on the material considered in the original proceeding.

The applicant had produced no qualifying new evidence and identified no apparent error or other sufficient ground under the review standard.

Reconsidering the merits or adopting another possible view would therefore exceed the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.