Jammu and Kashmir High Court

CM(M)/438/2026 of ZAHID MUSHTAQ DAR, DIRECTOR ALFALAH AGRI TECH PVT LTD Vs SHAHNAWAZ AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER on 6 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 438/2026 CM(6585/2026) CM(6794/2026) Caveat 2307/2026 ZAHID MUSHTAQ DAR, DIRECTOR ALFALAH AGRI TECH PVT LTD ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shabir Ahmad Dar, Advocate. V/s SHAHNAWAZ AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER

02

Regular

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CM(M) 438/2026 CM(6585/2026) CM(6794/2026)

Caveat 2307/2026

ZAHID MUSHTAQ DAR, DIRECTOR ALFALAH AGRI TECH PVT LTD

….. Petitioner(s)

Through:

Mr. Shabir Ahmad Dar, Advocate.

V/s

SHAHNAWAZ AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER

…Respondent(s)

Through:

Mr. P. S Ahmad, Advocate.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge

ORDER

06.10.2026

Page 1 of 2

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree could not have been executed by the petitioner as in the compromise entered into between the parties, it was not provided that an aggrieved party can file an application for execution of the decree.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent No. 1 only would press for execution of the decree passed by the court of learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama pursuant to compromise entered into between the parties and shall not press the execution of the decree on behalf of respondent No. 2, as in the compromise entered into between the parties, the petitioner can still discharge his decretal obligations till March-April, 2027

P a g e | 2 CM(M) 438/2026 CM(6585/2026) CM(6794/2026) Caveat 2307/2026

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The contention of the petitioner that the parties could not have filed the execution of the compromise decree in light of Clause 8 of the Agreement which provides that an aggrieved party can approach the Hon’ble Court for execution of the compromise and cannot file application for execution, is misconceived.

5. Clauses 1 to 3 of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are self-explanatory and whereas, as rightly submitted by Mr. P. S Ahmad, Advocate, the respondent No. 2 cannot seek execution of the decree till March- April, 2027 because the petitioner in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties can still discharge his decretal obligations by that time.

6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Executing court to proceed ahead in the execution so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned. However, the executing court shall not proceed against the petitioner regarding decretal claim of respondent No. 2 till the expiry of the period stipulated in the compromise i.e, March-April, 2027.

(Rajnesh Oswal)

Judge

SRINAGAR 06.10.2026 Aasif

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead