Jammu and Kashmir High Court
RFA/5/2026 of UMAR FAROOQ PARRAY Vs MOHAMMAD AKBAR DAR on 30 March 2026
REGULAR CAUSE LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 194/2026 In RFA No. 05/2026 Umar Farooq Parray …Petitioner(s) Through: Vs. Mohammad Akbar Dar ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 30.03.2026 1. There is
Serial No. 11
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM No. 194/2026 In
RFA No. 05/2026
Umar Farooq Parray
…Petitioner(s)
Through:
Vs.
Mohammad Akbar Dar
...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, 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
30.03.2026
1. There is an inadvertent error in order dated 31.01.2026 effect of which is that today’s Regular Cause List mentions listing of CM No. 194/2026 which in fact came to be disposed of in terms of order dated 31.01.2026.
2. CM No. 194/2026 was for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay which came to be allowed.
3. Instead of referring to CM No. 195/2026 disposed of application CM No. 194/2026 has been mentioned in order dated 31.01.2026.
4. The error is self-corrected by this Court Order dated 31.01.2026 be read as referring to CM No. 195/2026 in para 10.
5. This Court had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,15,000/- with the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar by or before next date of hearing.
6. Said deposit has not taken place from the end of the appellant, meaning thereby the appellant sought indulgence of this Court only to derail the execution proceedings. Otherwise, if the appellant would have been serious in pursuing the appellate remedy for which this Court granted indulgence by condoning the delay, the appellant would not have lost opportunity of making the requisite deposit of Rs. 2,15,000/- within the time given.
7. There is not even an application from the end of the appellant/applicant for seeking extension of a time in making the requisite deposit beyond the original time given.
8. None is present on behalf of the appellant today.
9. In view of the non-appearance of counsel for the appellant as well as the appellant, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
10. Interim direction as given in order dated 31.01.2026 shall stand withdrawn.
11. Copy of this order be forwarded by the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar to the Additional District Judge, Sopore for being taken on record of the execution proceedings, if any, pending before it so as to revive the execution proceedings.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 30.03.2026 Shabroz