Judgment:
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.
1. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 claimants filed a claim petition before M.A.C.T., Pulwama, in respect of death of one Nisar Ahmed Malik who died in vehicular accident. The matter was settled in Lok Adalat on 23.2.1999. Petitioner company agreed to pay Rs. 70,000/- towards full settlement of the claim in respect of third party liability. The Claims Tribunal on 7.8.1999 besides awarding the above agreed amount, also awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the owner and driver. The owner was to pay Rs. 25,000/- and driver Rs. 5,000/-. However, subsequently during execution proceedings order dated 16.5.2000 was passed whereunder company was also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- for the reason that this amount added to the above agreed award amount is covered by the limit and extent of the insurance policy. The order and the award is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. It may be noted that the order dated 16.5.2000 with which all other orders have merged is passed in review jurisdiction. The review application of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., petitioner before this court, stands dismissed for the reason that the application suffers from delay and no steps whatsoever have been taken to seek condonation of delay and that application was not accompanied by certified order sought to be reviewed and that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy fully covered the order dated 16.5.2000 and that the order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record.
3. This revision petition under Sections 103 and 104 of the Constitution of J&K; State corresponding to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the aforementioned review order. This petition is misconceived. No revision can lie as this case is against an order of review. Article 226 has no application to this case. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is available where the court or Tribunal has not proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less if it is an error of law. After all High Court does not act under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible for the High Court on a petition of this nature to review or reweigh the evidence and documents upon which the court or the Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.
In result, the petition is dismissed.