Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/2384/2024 of KHURSHEED AHMAD SOFI Vs JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED AND ORS. on 31 October 2025
No. 15 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2384/2024 CM(2719/2025) Khursheed Ahmad Sofi …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s). Through: None. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and Ors. ...Respondent(s). Through: Mr. Iman Abdul Muiz, Advocate vice
Serial No. 15
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 2384/2024 CM(2719/2025)
Khursheed Ahmad Sofi
…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through:
None.
Vs.
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited
and Ors.
...Respondent(s).
Through:
Mr. Iman Abdul Muiz, Advocate vice
Mr. T.H. Khawja, Sr. Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, 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
31.10.2025
1. Vide order dated 21st October, 2024, this Court, while issuing notice in the petition filed by the petitioner, stayed the impugned notice issued by the Bank subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount due as on the said date
2. The aforesaid order was not complied with despite having availed several opportunities. With a view to avoid the compliance of the order, the petitioner has now filed CM No. 2719/2025 seeking extension of time for depositing the outstanding amount as directed by this Court vide order dated 12th October, 2025. This application was moved on 5th May, 2025, and more than five months have passed even after the filing of the extension application and the amount has not been deposited. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to comply with the directions and pay back the loan amount even to the extent of 50%.
3. CM No. 2719/2025 is, thus, dismissed.
4. Faced with the aforesaid position, the petitioner has probably decided not to pursue this petition and that is why he is unrepresented today though the case was called twice.
5. The petition is, as such, dismissed for non-prosecution.
6. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE
JUDGE SRINAGAR 31.10.2025 “Shahid Manzoor”