Serial No.44 SUPPLEMENTARY CAUSE LIST-I HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP 54/2025 In WP(C) 1149/2025 Mehmood Askari …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mohammad Yawar Hussain, Advocate Vs. Union of India Th. Secretary Ministry of Finance Govt. of India and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Parihar, Judge. ORDER 11.07.2025 01. This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1149/2025 dated 23rd May, 2023, on the ground that, as stated in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner had submitted that account No. 0096010100001492 with Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Kargil, originally belonged to the deceased brother of the petitioner, who was the proprietor of M/S Akhlaqi Tour and Travels, and that the said account was later transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 2016. 02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not place on record the documentary evidence in support of the aforesaid plea along with the petition, which evidence he could discover only after the disposal of the writ petition. It is thus argued that, if this Court had the benefit of looking at the aforesaid document, probably the outcome of the petition would have been different. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.25 03. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the ground urged is not a sufficient ground for recalling of the judgment. We have taken note of all the aspects of the matter, including the assertion made by the petitioner that originally the deceased brother of the petitioner was the proprietor of M/S Akhlaqi Tour and Travels, which was later came to be transferred in the name of the petitioner. otherwise also, the bank account to which reference is made in Paragraph 6 of the writ petition was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, could not said to be a document which petitioner could not have discovered during the pendency of the writ petition despite due diligence. As per own showing of the petitioner the bank account to which reference is made in Paragraph 6 to seek review of the judgment was later transferred in the name of the petitioner. 04. That being the position, the plea urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the bank account could not be produced as the same was discovered only after the judgment was passed is factually incorrect. 05. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this review petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge SRINAGAR: 11.07.2025 “Mir Arif” (i) Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No. (ii) Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.25