HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU RP No. 114/2023 in CFA No. 19/2001 CM No. 7614/2023 Cav No. 2033/2023 Durga Devi Age 72 years W/o Sh. Prithvi Raj R/o Jhulass, Tehsil Haveli and District Poonch. …..Appellants Through: Ms. Mehrukh Syedan, Advocate Vs 1. Iqbal Singh S/o Krishan Singh R/o Poonch City, Tehsil and District Poonch 2. Pushpa Devi W/o Isher Dass R/o Poonch City, Tehsil and District Poonch 3. Parveen Kumari D/o Isher Dass R/o Poonch City, Tehsil and District Poonch 4. Anita Kumari D/o Isher Dass R/o Poonch City, Tehsil and District Poonch 5. Parveen Kumar S/o Isher Dass R/o Poonch City, Tehsil and District Poonch .…. Respondents Through: Mr. K.L Pandita, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 11.08.2025 1. The present review petition has been filed by Mst. Durga Devi who happens to be respondent No. 1 in the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 herein namely Iqbal Singh against judgment and decree dated 14.02.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Poonch whereby the suit filed by review petitioner/plaintiff for Right to Prior Purchase was decreed in his favour and a decree of possession of suit property was passed against respondent No. 1 herein/defendant No. 1. 2. Heard and considered. 3. It appears that respondent-Iqbal Singh had filed a suit against the review petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein claiming right of prior purchase in Sr. No. 28 2 RP No. 114/2023 respect of property comprising a kacha house and vacant piece of land situated in Poonch Town. The suit was decreed by learned District Judge, Poonch in favour of the review petitioner/plaintiff and against respondent No. 1 herein- Iqbal Singh on 14.02.2001 and a decree of possession of suit property was passed in favour of respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1. The said judgment and decree came to be challenged by way of a regular appeal by respondent No. 1- Iqbal Singh before this Court which was registered as CFA No. 19/2001. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be set aside by this Court in terms of judgment dated 07.11.2023 which is sought to be reviewed through the medium of present petition. 4. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside by this Court on the sole ground that review petitioner/plaintiff had failed to deposit 1/5th of the sale consideration which was assessed as the probable value of the suit property in terms of directions dated 13.10.1990 passed by the trial Court. It was held by this Court that provisions contained in Section 21 of the J&K Right to Prior Purchase Act are mandatory in nature as such, failure on the part of the review petitioner/plaintiff to deposit the amount renders the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court unsustainable in law. 5. The review petitioner has contended that after passing of order dated 13.10.1990 by the trial Court, the review petitioner had made an application dated 20.10.1990 before the trial Court seeking permission to deposit the amount as directed vide order dated 13.10.1990 passed by the trial Court pursuant whereto, the review petitioner/plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs. 8,000/- before the trial Court vide G.R No. 000040 dated 22.10.1990. It has been further submitted that after passing of the judgment and decree by the trial 3 RP No. 114/2023 Court, the review petitioner/ plaintiff has deposited the balance amount of Rs. 32,000/- before the trial Court vide G.R No. 000068 dated 20.02.2001. On this basis, it has been claimed that the finding of this Court that the review petitioner/plaintiff had failed to deposit the amount in terms of order dated 13.10.1990 is factually incorrect and there is an error apparent on the face of the record which renders the judgment passed by this Court on 07.11.2023 liable to be reviewed. 6. Record of the trial Court was summoned to ascertain the veracity of the contentions raised by the review petitioner. A perusal of the original record of the trial Court clearly reveals that the review petitioner/plaintiff had made an application before the trial Court on 20.10.1990 seeking permission to deposit the amount in terms of order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the trial Court and an order came to be passed on the said application by the learned District Judge, permitting the review petitioner/plaintiff to deposit 1/5th of the amount of the probable value of the sale deed as was assessed by the trial Court. It also appears that the amount of Rs. 8,000/- came to be deposited by the review petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court vide G.R No. 000040 dated 22.10.1990. 7. In view of above facts borne out from the record, the finding of this Court that review petitioner/plaintiff had failed to deposit the amount in terms of order dated 13.10.1990 passed by the trial Court is without an basis. It appears that either the relevant material has escaped the notice of this Court or the same has not been brought to the notice of the Court. In either case, it amounts to an error apparent on face of the record. Once, it is found from the material on record of the trial Court to show that the review petitioner/plaintiff had deposited the amount before the trial Court in terms of order dated 13.10.1990, 4 RP No. 114/2023 the provisions contained under Section 21 of the J&K Right to Prior Purchase Act could not have been pressed into service. Thus, the judgment dated 07.11.2023 passed by this Court in CFA No. 19/2001 becomes unsustainable in law and is, therefore, required to be reviewed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the present review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 07.11.2023 passed in CFA No. 19/2001 is reviewed and recalled. 9. Registry is directed to list the appeal bearing CFA No. 19/2001 for fresh hearing on 11.09.2025. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 11.08.2025 Tarun/P/S Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.08.13 01:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document