Jammu and Kashmir High Court
RFA/69/2025 of GHULAM MOHI UD DIN KUTHOO Vs SYED MOHISIN ALI AND ANR. on 15 May 2026
No. 13 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(5682/2025) IN RFA 69/2025 GHULAM MOHI UD DIN KUTHOO …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Sammer-ul-Hamid, Advocate Vs. SYED MOHISIN ALI AND ANR. ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR.
Serial No. 13
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(5682/2025) IN RFA 69/2025
GHULAM MOHI UD DIN KUTHOO
…Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Sammer-ul-Hamid, Advocate
Vs.
SYED MOHISIN ALI AND ANR.
...Respondent(s)
Through: None
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDE R
15.05.2026
CM No. 5682/2025
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.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 628 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11th September, 2023 passed by the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar [“the trial court”] in a suit for recovery titled Syed Mohsin and Another. Vs. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Kuthoo”.
2. The huge delay of more than 600 days is sought to be explained by submitting that although the judgment and decree sought to be challenged was passed on 11th September, 2023, yet before filing the instant appeal, the appellant approached the trial court by way of an application under Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. The said application was decided on 17th July, 2025.
3. It is submitted that upon dismissal of the application by the trial court, the appellant took immediate steps and filed the appeal on 29th August, 2025. The appellant has also placed on record some medical slips to indicate that during the year 2024, he was not keeping good health and was being treated as an OPD patient. He has not placed on record any medical record indicating that he remained hospitalized even for a day.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to explain the huge delay of more than 600 days for filing the appeal. Indisputably, the decree sought to be challenged was passed on 11th September, 2023 and till 13.11.2024, the appellant was not suffering from any disability of any kind which could be said to have prevented him from filing the appeal. When the appellant filed an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, the period of limitation had long back expired. As a matter of fact, this application itself was filed after 14 months from the date of passing of the decree. The medical record also pertains to the year 2024 and, therefore, is of no avail to the appellant. That apart, the medical record clearly reveals that the appellant was not suffering from any such ailment as would have prevented him from filing an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
5. Viewed from any angle, the appellant has miserably failed to demonstrate the sufficient cause which prevented him from filing the appeal within a period of limitation.
6. The application is found devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with RFA 69/2025.
(SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 15.05.2026 “ARIF”