The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently observed that simply because a judge has gone wrong in law, it would not be a ground for a review of such judgment by the High Court although it may be a ground for appeal (Gagan Gupta and Others v. Union Territory of J&K and Others)..The Court said that as per Rule 65 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) review petition before the High Court is permissible only on limited grounds. The Court made the observation while dismissing a batch of review petitions challenging a judgment dated December 28, 2020, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in a matter concerning the cancellation of temporary licenses to wine shops. .The order was passed by the Bench of Justices Sanjay Dhar and Tashi Rabstan."We are of the firm view that even if it is assumed that the view taken by us on any point may not be right but it is not a ground for review that a judgment proceeds on an incorrect exposition of law. Simply because a judge has gone wrong in law that is no ground for a review, though it may be a ground for appeal. Similarly an erroneous view of law is no ground of review though it may be a good ground of appeal. A Court cannot rehear and correct erroneous judgment by way of a review. A mere repetition of old and over ruled arguments are insufficient for exercising jurisdiction of review," the order said..The Bench reiterated that the High Court's review powers can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances such as "when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or a grave error has crept in an earlier judgment by a judicial fallibility.".In this regard, the Court adverted to Rule 65 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 which deals with the power of the High Court to review its judgment. It states:"The Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review shall be entertained except on the ground mentioned in order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code (CPC)."The Court then examined the relevant CPC provision to reach the conclusion that the review jurisdiction may be appropriate in the following scenarios:(i) if it is shown by the aggrieved person that a new and important matter and evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him, has been discovered.(ii) if there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and(iii) for any other sufficient reason.."It is a settled law that a review is not maintainable (on) the ground that the view expressed in the judgment is erroneous," the Court emphasised. .Referring to the case of Kamlesh Verma v Mayawati and others, the Bench added that the mere possibility of two views on a subject cannot be a ground for a review. ."Thus, in exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not open to us to alter our earlier view simply because another view as projected by the review petitioners is also possible," the Court said. .The matter concerned several writ petitioners who had challenged a notice for the cancellation of temporary liquor licenses from the Excise Commissioner dated December 14, 2005. A single-judge decided the matter by a common judgment dated February 6, 2017. By this decision, the writ petitions were disposed of while granting the government liberty to review its Excise Policy. .The single-judge verdict was challenged before a Division Bench, which confirmed the said decision in December 2020. This decision was sought to be reviewed by various petitioners. .The review petitioners argued, inter alia, that the High Court did not consider the effect of Section 62 (Publication of rules and notifications) of the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act while passing its judgment. Such non-consideration of a provision of law constitutes an error apparent on the face of record, it was contended. As such, the judgment deserves to be reviewed, the petitioners submitted..The review petitioners added that the directions passed in the challenged judgment were beyond the pleadings of the parties. In this regard, the petitioners submitted that there was no challenge made against the Excise Policies for the years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. As such, it was not open to the Court to delve upon the validity of of these Policies, it was argued..The Bench, however, dismissed this contention by pointing out that the common judgment under challenge had also dealt with certain pleas challenging these policies, although the initial challenge was only to the Excise Policy for the year 2017-2018. .Another contention raised was that the challenged judgment discusses the law concerning the right of a person who trades in liquor, on the one hand, but records no finding on the issue. This constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, the petitioners submitted. The Bench, however, disagreed. ."In paragraph 75 of the judgment, it clearly noted by the Court that the Supreme Court has time and again opined that there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor," it observed. .In view of these findings, the Court found no merit in the review petitions and dismissed the same..Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi with Advocates Parimoksh Seth and Navyug Sethi appeared for the review petitioners/ appellants. Additional Advocates General HA Siddiqui, Aseem Sawhney and Raman Sharma and Government Advocate Bhanu Jasrotia appeared for the Jammu and Kashmir Government.