Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdul Rashid War & Anr vs State Of J&K; And Others on 6 July, 2018
Author: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
OWP No.1212/2018
IA No.01/2018
Date of Order: 06.07.2018
Abdul Rashid War & anr. Vs. State of J&K and others.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): None.
01. This petition has been filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir State. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:
02. Respondent no.2 appears to have filed a suit for declaration and possession on 24th May, 2003, which was decreed on 5th May, 2011. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioners herein and one Nazir Ahmad War, the predecessor in interest of respondents 3 to 5, filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the Additional District Judge, Baramulla. This application, however, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13th June, 2012, as a consequence whereof the main appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter on 23.08.2011, an application for restoration along with application for condonation of delay was filed for restoration of the condonation of delay application as also the appeal which too came to be dismissed on 14th March, 2014.
03. It appears that before the dismissal of the application for restoration on 14th March, 2014, Nazir Ahmad War, had already passed away on 20 th January, 2014. It also appears that thereafter respondents 3 to 5 and petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the OWP No.1212/2018 Page 1 of 2 application for re-admission of the appeal which was dismissed on 14 th March, 2014. Even this application was not followed by the applicants and came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 2nd February, 2018.
04. In the present petition, the petitioners challenge the order of dismissal on the ground that the court below ought not to have dismissed the application for restoration on 2nd February, 2018 inasmuch as the appeal was strong on merits. It was urged that the court below ought not to have adopted a technical approach in dismissing the case of the petitioners and ought to have decided the main issues involved in the litigation.
05. Heard counsel for the parties.
06. From the record, it appears that the petitioners had not been diligent in following their case right from the beginning. The appeal filed by the petitioners even at the initial stage was filed belatedly by the petitioners/ their predecessors in interest and was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay which was not followed diligently resulting in its dismissal. Two applications filed subsequent thereto also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. When a party does not appear to prosecute its matters, the court is not obliged to decide matters in their absence on merits. In dismissing the application on 2nd February, 2018, the court below do not commit any perversity or illegality.
07. Keeping in view the above, in my opinion, the order impugned deserves no interference and is accordingly dismissed.
(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Srinagar 06.07.2018 Abdul Qayoom, PS OWP No.1212/2018 Page 2 of 2