HCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE

High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Judgments in February 2026: Case Law Digest

Read 7 LawLens analyses of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh judgments published in February 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.

← BACK TO J&K AND LADAKH COURT REPORT

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

February 2026 Judgments

7 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
### Scope of Review Jurisdiction Is Restricted to Apparent Errors and Precludes Re-Hearing on Merits Facts: The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) sought a review of a judgment that had quashed the cancellation of a candidate's selection. The review was primarily sought on grounds previously argued and decided in the original writ petition. Ruling: The High Court dismissed the petition, reiterating that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is limited to correcting "errors apparent on the face of record." It clarified that a review cannot be used as an "appeal in disguise" to re-argue overruled contentions or seek a substitution of the Court’s view. Mere disagreement with judicial reasoning does not constitute a valid ground for review; such challenges must be addressed before a higher forum.. Indian Institute of Technology & Ors. v. Irfan Yusuf & Others RP No. 1/2026 in WP(C) No. 2804/2023. Jammu and Kashmir High Court. LawLens

Jammu and Kashmir High Court·

### Scope of Review Jurisdiction Is Restricted to Apparent Errors and Precludes Re-Hearing on Merits Facts: The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) sought a review of a judgment that had quashed the cancellation of a candidate's selection. The review was primarily sought on grounds previously argued and decided in the original writ petition. Ruling: The High Court dismissed the petition, reiterating that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is limited to correcting "errors apparent on the face of record." It clarified that a review cannot be used as an "appeal in disguise" to re-argue overruled contentions or seek a substitution of the Court’s view. Mere disagreement with judicial reasoning does not constitute a valid ground for review; such challenges must be addressed before a higher forum.

The respondent (Irfan Yusuf) applied for the post of Laboratory Officer under the OBC category at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT).

2 MIN READ