Jammu and Kashmir High Court
RP/44/2026 of ABDUL MAJID KHAN Vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER (ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY) on 8 September 2026
44/2026 Page No. 1 Serial No. 38 SUPPL. CAUSE LIST-I HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP No. 44/2026 In LPA 168/2026 Abdul Majid Khan …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. A.M. Khan, Advocate Vs. Divisional Manager (Oriental Insurance Company) ...Respondent(s) Through: None
RP No. 44/2026 Page No. 1
Serial No. 38
SUPPL. CAUSE LIST-I
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
RP No. 44/2026 In LPA 168/2026
Abdul Majid Khan
…Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. A.M. Khan, Advocate
Vs.
Divisional Manager (Oriental
Insurance Company)
...Respondent(s)
Through:
None
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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
08.09.2026
01. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 03.08.2026, passed by this Court in LPA No. 168/2026, primarily on the ground that the judgment suffers from an error apparent on face of record, inasmuch as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled “State of Gujarat and Another v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Others” reported as AIR 1984 SC 161 was overlooked.
02. Having heard the petitioner in person, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), is totally misplaced. We have dealt with the issue of maintainability of the appeal arising from an order passed by the learned Single Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction against the original order passed by the trial Court. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.09.26
RP No. 44/2026 Page No. 2
03. It is well settled and has been consistently held by this Court that, in view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an intra-Court appeal is not maintainable when the order impugned has been passed by the learned Single Judge in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction against the original order passed by the trial court.
04. The petitioner could not demonstrate before us as to how the law laid down by this Court in so many judgments interpreting the provisions of Section100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not attracted to the case in hand. The petitioner has though referred to the judgment passed by the five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), but has not explained as to how this case is covered by the said judgment. He has not even produced the said judgment for perusal of this Court.
05. Be that as it may, the instant review petition is grossly misconceived and utterly frivolous and, therefore, deserved to be dismissed out rightly.
06. Ordered accordingly.
(Mohd Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge
Chief Justice (Acting)
SRINAGAR: 08.09.2026 “Mir Arif”
(i) Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No.
(ii) Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.09.26