CAT - ['Jammu']Administrative and Public Law Civil Procedure and Evidence

Jammu CAT Rejects Surjeet Kumar’s Review Plea, Finding No Apparent Error Or Qualifying New Evidence In Earlier Order

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 12, 2026Published 28 October 2026 at 8:04 pm IST2 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record or another ground warranting review of the order dated 6 August 2026

The court held

The Tribunal held that no ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, or other sufficient ground, had been established.

It also directed

It dismissed the Review Application as devoid of merit, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, if any, and made no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 6 August 2026 in O.A. No. 104/2024.

p. 1

The Tribunal considered the Review Application and the material on record; the review grounds were treated as seeking reconsideration of findings already made in the original proceeding.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record or another ground warranting review of the order dated 6 August 2026

p. 3 · p. 4

ii.Whether the grounds raised amounted to an impermissible request for rehearing or re-appreciation of the original matter

p. 3

03Law Applied

Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, review is confined to grounds such as discovery of new and important matter or evidence unavailable despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient analogous reason.

p. 4

Review is not an appeal or a means to obtain a rehearing, re-appreciation of evidence, or substitution of one view for another. The Tribunal relied 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.

p. 2 · p. 3

04Reasoning

Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the applicant had identified neither an apparent error nor new and important evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier.

p. 3

It concluded that the grounds instead sought re-appreciation of material already considered and reconsideration of the Tribunal’s findings—an exercise outside review jurisdiction. Dissatisfaction with the result, or the possibility of another view, was insufficient to justify review.

p. 3 · p. 4