RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, ACJ.--- The captioned review petition has been filed for review of the judgment of this Court dated 13.02.2020 whereby the application for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings has been consigned to record for the reason that the judgment of the Court has been implemented.
2. The office has reported that the review petition has been filed by the petitioner himself without filing of certificate as required under Order XL VI, Rule 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978.
3. It is suffice to refer here the relevant provisions of Order XLVI of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 which read as under:- "1. .........................
2. .........................
3. ..........................
4. The Advocate signing the application shall specify in brief the points upon prayer for review is based and shall add a certificate to the effect that consistently with the law and practice of the Court, a review would be justifiable in the case. The certificate shall be in the form of a reasoned opinion.
5. ...........................
6.Except with the special leave of the Court, no application shall be drawn by any advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order , sought to be reviewed, was made. Such Advocate shall, unless his presence has been dispensed with by the Court, be present at the hearing of the application for review .
7. ..............................
8. .............................
9. .............................
10. ..........................
These statutory provisions have thoroughly been elaborated in the case reported as Mst. Kaneez Akhtar v. AJK Govt. and others 2016 PLC (C.S.) 376 in the following manner:- "The petitioner has herself filed the review petition. Under Rule 6 of Order XLVI of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, every revie w petition shall be filed by the advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, was made. The rule further provides that review petition may be drawn by any advocate with special leave of the Court. In that case, the advocate who appeared in the original case, shall remain present in the Court unless his appearance is dispensed with and rule 4 of Order XLVI, postulates that the Advocate signing the application shall specify in brief the points upon which the prayer for review is based and shall add a certificat e to the effect that consistently with the law and practice of the Court, a review would be justifiable in the case. The certificate shall be in the form of a reasoned opinion. The review petition cannot be filed without a certificate of the counsel who signed the review petition. There is a wisdom behind it that review petition on legal question is maintainable on the basis of certificate in the form of reasoned opinion by the advocate who appeared in the original case. It was observed in the case titled Ghulam Nabi and others v.
Muhammad Khan and others (Civil Review No.31 of 2014, decided on 08.05.2015), as under:- 'The wisdom behind the rule is that the advocate who conducted the case is well aware of the facts and law. He may form opinion that review lies on the ground that there is some error apparent on the face of record and in civil matters on the ground akin to Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. or discovery of some new evidence is available which was not available at the time of appeal or any other sufficient ground. An ordinary person cannot form such opinion.
The review petition is accompanied by a certificate of the petitioners who are not advocates. Only an advocate who represented the party in the appeal may file such certificate. Therefore, the review petition is in violation of Rule 4 of Order XL VI.'
In another case titled Khurshid Ahmed and others. v. Raja Javaid Ayub Khan and others (Criminal Review No.2 of 2015, decided on 08.05.2015), it was observed as under:- 'A certificate as required under Order XLVI, Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 has been filed by the petitioners themselves. The requirement of Order XLVI, Rule, 4 is that no advocate other than who represented the party in the original appeal may draw the review petition and Rule 4 postulates that the advocate signing the review petition shall file a certificate to the effect that consistently "with the law and practice of the Court, a review petition would be justifiable in the case". The wisdom behind the rule is that the advocate who conducted the case is well aware of the facts and law. He may form opinion that review lies on the ground that there is some error apparent on the face of record and in civil matters on the ground akin to Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. or discovery of some new evidence is available which was not available at the time of appeal or any other sufficient ground. An ordinary person cannot form such opinion. The review petition is accompanied by a certificate of the petitioners who are not advocates. Only an advocate who represented the party in the appeal may file such certificate.'
Thus the review petition is not competently filed, it merits, dismissal."
In the present case, the petitioner has himself filed the instant review petition, whereas, under Rule 6, Order XLVI of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, except with the special leave of the Court, no Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared and argued at the time of hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed has been delivered; can draw the application for review . Furthermore, under Rule 4, Order XLVI (supra) filing of the certificate in support of the review petition is also mandatory . As the petitioner has failed to fulfil the mandatory requirements of law , hence; this review petition entails dismissal.
4. Although, the petitioner requested for granting time to engage the counsel, however , as stated hereinabove no Advocate other than the Advocate who appeared at the time of hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed has been handed down; can draw the application for review , thus, his request is not tenable.
For the foregoing reasons, finding no force this review petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.