Jammu and Kashmir High Court
FAO/22/2024 of ABDUL RASHID DAR AND OTHERS Vs GHULAM RASOOL AND ORS. on 25 February 2026
REGULAR CAUSE LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR FAO No. 22/2024 Abdul Rashid Dar and Ors. …Petitioner(s) Through: Vs. Ghulam Rasool and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Arba, Advocate for vice Mr. Tariq M. Shah, Advocate for R-1 to 5 CORAM: HON’BLE
Serial No. 13
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
FAO No. 22/2024
Abdul Rashid Dar and Ors.
…Petitioner(s)
Through:
Vs.
Ghulam Rasool and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through:
Ms. Arba, Advocate for vice
Mr. Tariq M. Shah, Advocate for R-1 to 5
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
25.02.2026
1. A civil suit came to be preferred by Mohammad Dar, the successor-in-interest of the petitioners No. 1 to 6 herein, joined by the respondents No. 7 to 10.
2. Said suit later came to be on the file of Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar after having first received trial in the Court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar.
3. The suit file became a flood hit file.
4. In said civil suit, the respondents No. 1 to 12 herein figured as defendants.
5. The suit is for declaration with respect to land measuring 14 marlas 3 sirsai comprising survey No. 129 of village Barzulla claimed by the plaintiffs to have been vested in them by way of adverse possession.
6. During pendency of civil suit, the defendants No. 7 namely Mohammad Sidiq Gujri and defendant No. 10- Sabir Ganai came to demise. For the purpose of bringing on record the legal representatives of said two deceased defendants an application came to be preferred by the plaintiffs which was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay but the same came to be dismissed by the trial court by virtue of order dated 25.05.2024.
7. The Court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar did not afford condonation of delay in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners and thus kept the suit for consideration on a second point of consideration as to whether the suit abates against deceased defendants No. 7 and 10 or in entirety.
8. It is against aforesaid order dated 25.05.2024 that the plaintiffs/petitioners came forward with a present civil miscellaneous appeal.
9. In the present appeal, there are 19 respondents named by the petitioners themselves and none of the respondents are pro forma respondents meaning thereby service of each and every respondent in the present appeal is an essential step before taking the appeal to its logical adjudication but the appellants have defaulted in getting service of the respondents No.6 to 16 by their default in taking the requisite steps as such notwithstanding the absence of counsel for the appellants, the appeal is dismissed for default on part of the appellants in taking requisite steps.
10. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar for notice and proceeding ahead with the suit if the trial is not held up because of pendency of present appeal which is hereby being dismissed.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 25.02.2026 Shabroz