HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU RP No. 20/2025 in CR No. 32/2016 CM No. 3871/2025 CM No. 3872/2025 Nazir Ahmed . …..Appellants Through: Mr. Ankush Manhas, Advocate Vs Maqbool Ahmed .…. Respondents Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 05.08.2025 CM No. 3871/2025 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 3. The delay in filing the review petition is, accordingly, condoned. 4. Application stands disposed of. RP No. 20/2025 1. Through the medium of the present review petition, the review petitioner is seeking review of order/judgment dated 18.05.2023, whereby petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the review petitioner has been dismissed by this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Sr. No. 02 2 RP No. 20/2025 3. The ground that has been urged for reviewing the judgment dated 18.05.2023 is that the Executing Court, while directing recovery of possession of 04 marlas of land from the petitioner has exceeded its jurisdiction because the Executing Court was only vested with power to execute the judgment and decree for permanent prohibitory injunction but the said Court converted it into a decree for possession and directed recovery of possession of 04 marlas of land. It has been contended that this Court while exercising its powers of supervision was obliged to take these aspects into consideration but the same has not been done. It has been submitted that on this ground, the judgment deserves to be reviewed. 4. A perusal of the judgment under review reveals that this Court after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the view taken by the Executing Court that the review petitioner/judgment debtor has encroached upon the land belonging to the respondent/decree holder appears to be plausible and the said view cannot be termed as “erroneous”. Thus, it is not a case where the aforesaid contention of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by this Court. 5. The issue as to whether declining to interfere in the view taken by the Executing Court, this Court has gone wrong, cannot be a subject matter of deliberation and discussion in a review petition. Merely because a judge has gone wrong, cannot form a ground to review any order. The petitioner by filing present review petition has tried to convert the same into an appeal against the judgment sought to be reviewed, which cannot be permitted. If at all, the petitioner has any grievance against the judgment under review, he 3 RP No. 20/2025 has to avail appropriate remedy before a superior Court but this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of review, cannot re-hear and decide the issues which have already been dealt with in the judgment under review. 6. The review petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 05.08.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No