Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sneh Lata vs Dayalbagh Radhasoami Satsang on 9 December, 2025
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No. 06
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM No. 7745/2025 in
MCC No. 119/2018
Sneh Lata
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Arsha Sharma, Advocate.
Vs
Dayalbagh Radhasoami Satsang
.....Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
(09.12.2025)
01. Petitioner-Sneh Lata approached this Court with a petition under section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir equivalent to article 227 of the Constitution of India being an aggrieved defendant in a civil suit filed by the respondent before the court of City Judge, Jammu.
02. The civil suit is for eviction of the petitioner as a tenant from the suit shop.
03. The cause of action for the petitioner to come forward with the present petition was passing of order dated 19.03.2018 by the trial court.
04. The institution of the present petition before this Court is of 18.07.2018 in which even notice to the respondent has not been 2 CM No. 7745/2025 in MCC No. 119/2018 directed. The reason for this scenario is because the petition was not accompanied with typed copy of the impugned order for which the petitioner through the medium of application is seeking dispensation citing the reason that the impugned order dated 19.03.2018 being hand written is not being correctly legible to be typed.
05. The respondent was on caveat through Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned counsel who came to appear in the case on 24.07.2018.
06. Application for seeking dispensation of filing of the typed copy is accepted with exemption granted to the petitioner not to come up with the typed copy of the impugned order which this Court with the assistance of Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel has been able to read to best possible extent and the order reads as under:
"19.03.2018 L/c for plaintiff is present. Defendant not present in person or represented through counsel. No witness for defendant is present despite being given last opportunity to adduce evidence. Defendant failed to carry out the order of court and produce her witnesses. The notices issued to plaintiffs witnesses, namely, Sunil Khajuria, Rakesh Khajuria and Jagdish Kumar Khajuria also despite accepting the service of notice/summons not turned up. The defendant's counsel have absented. Warrants of arrest against the witnesses also despite service not turned up. Had the defendant being appearing before the court, it appears that she lacks intent to bring the witnesses before this Court. In absence of defendant, the court is not bound to take the onus of party on its own. Issue the process for summoning the witnesses for defendant. Defendant 3 CM No. 7745/2025 in MCC No. 119/2018 has failed to take the requisite steps and in the given circumstance the evidence of the defendant is ordered to be closed. Put up on 24.04.2018."
07. It is this aforesaid order obtaining in hand-written form that the petitioner came forward with the petition for examining the legality and validity of the same in the face of the fact that when issues in the case came to be framed on 25.03.2011, the list of witnesses from her end was submitted on 18.04.2011 i.e. of course beyond fifteen days time period. The application so submitted by the petitioner as the defendant for filing of list of witnesses came to have a direction for Nazir to deposit the diet expenses though preferred beyond fifteen days prescribed time period w.e.f., framing of issues.
08. Today, CM No. 7745/2025 is for the sake of preponement of the case. The case is preponed.
09. Today's cause list is not reflecting the name of Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents but nevertheless he is present.
10. List the main case on 12.12.2025.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 09.12.2025 Shivalee Shivalee Khajuria 2025.12.11 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document