Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/15/2023 of JAHANGIR AHMED Vs RIAZ AHMED AND ANOTHER on 17 July 2026
OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 15/2023 Jahangir Ahmed …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Syed Waqar Hussain Shah, Adv. q vs Riaz Ahmed and another .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ajaz Choudhary, Adv. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM(M) No. 15/2023
Jahangir Ahmed
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Waqar Hussain Shah, Adv.
q
vs
Riaz Ahmed and another
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ajaz Choudhary, Adv.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
17.07.2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing of order dated 11.08.2021 passed in an application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 in a suit of partition, titled, Riaz Ahmed another vs. Jehangir Ahmed and another pending before the court of Sub Judge, Surankote(for short the trial court).
2. The petitioner has challenged the order impugned on the ground that the learned trial court has not rightly passed the order, particularly when the petitioner was not served in the aforesaid suit as he was on Army duty in Assam.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has committed an error by rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, particularly when he was out of station on account of his employment in Army. He further submits that the learned trial court could not have resorted to Article 163 of Schedule-I of the Limitation Act for the purpose of rejecting the application. 37
CM(M) No. 15/2023 Page 2 of 2
4. On the contrary, Mr. Ajaz Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial court be directed to decide the application afresh, as the learned trial court has decided the application only on the ground of limitation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Article 163 of the Schedule-I of the Limitation Act provides for a period of limitation for a period of 30 days for filing of an application by the plaintiff for an order to set aside a dismissal of the suit for default of his appearance or for failure to pay costs of service of process or to furnish security for costs and the said Article was not at all applicable in the instant case. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has committed an error, while dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant No. 1 for setting aside ex parte proceedings filed by the plaintiff by relying on Article 163 of the Schedule-I of the Limitation Act.
7. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to decide the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 for setting aside ex parte proceedings in a suit filed by the plaintiff afresh in accordance with Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC.
8. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu 17.07.2026 Rakesh PS
Rakesh Kumar 2026.07.20 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu