Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/129/2026 of KAISER AHMAD SHAH Vs AB.REHMAN WANI on 21 April 2026
No. 203 Suppl. Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 129/2026 CM(2142/2026) Kaiser Ahmad Shah (Aged 38 years) S/O Mohammad Shafi Shah, R/O Janbazpora Baramulla. ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: - Ms. Mahjabeen Gulzar, Advocate with Ms Monisa Manzoor,
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.
Serial No. 203 Suppl. Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 129/2026 CM(2142/2026)
Kaiser Ahmad Shah (Aged 38 years) S/O Mohammad Shafi Shah, R/O Janbazpora Baramulla. ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: - Ms. Mahjabeen Gulzar, Advocate with Ms Monisa Manzoor, Advocate.
V/s Ab. Rehman Wani S/O Gh. Ahmad Wani R/O Bandi Payen, Tehsil Wagoora, Baramulla. … Respondent(s) Through:- None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE.
(ORDER) 21.04.2026
01. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court seeks quashment of the Execution proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent before Principal District Court, Baramulla, in a case titled as “Abdul Rehman Wani vs. Kaiser Ahmad Shah” and seeking appropriate direction, orders or writ in favour of the petitioner, against the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a recovery suit against the petitioner herein, under Order 37 of CPC, for an amount of Rs. 7.00 lakhs, a decree was passed by the Court below on 12th of November, 2024, however, after passing of the decree, the parties entered into a compromise on 30th of August, 2025, whereby
whole of the payment sought by the decree holder has been liquidated.
03. He has alleged that the respondents filed an execution petition, thereafter and the Executing Court has initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein, so much so that an attachment warrant has also been issued.
04. On a pointed query by this Court as to whether the petitioner has approached Executing Court with this plea, the learned counsel has fairly conceded that the petitioner has not appeared before the Executing Court and has raised the question that the notice has not been properly issued, however, this contention is misplaced as the petitioner even now has a right to approach the Executing Court in the first instance, with his plea so as to apprise the Executing Court that the decree does not require to be enforced now in view of the compromise and payment made.
05. In view of above, the petition being misconceived is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to approach the Executing Court with the plea raised in this petition.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE SRINAGAR April 21st, 2026 “Shoaib javid”