Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Karmat Ullah Malik
2025 Latest Caselaw 2409 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Karmat Ullah Malik on 17 October, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                            Sr. No. 12

                                                                                    2025:JKLHC-JMU:3480-DB

         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU

                           Case No:- RP No. 36/2025 in
                                     LPA No. 216/2024
                                     CM No. 5557/2025
                                     CM No. 5558/2025

                                              Date of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025
                                              Uploaded on:           18.10.2025

  1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,
     through its Administrative Secretary, Rural
     Development Department, Civil Secretariat,
     UT of J&K, Jammu/Srinagar.
  2. Assistant Commissioner Development                       ....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
     Rajouri.

                            Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
                                       Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate
                          v/s
  Karmat ullah Malik
  S/o Ghulm Qadir                                                         ...Respondent(s)
  R/o Chowkian Tehsil,
  Darhal District, Rajouri

                          Through:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

                                ORDER(ORAL)

Sanjeev Kumar-J

1. Notice issued to the respondent through registered post on 19.09.2025

has not been received back served or un-served. Statutory period is over.

The respondent is set ex-parte.

2. The review petition filed by the petitioners is delayed by 96 days and,

therefore, an application for condonation of delay.

3. Despite notice, the respondent has chosen not to appear and, therefore,

there is no opposition to the application filed. We have gone through the

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3480-DB

application, seeking condonation of delay and are satisfied that sufficient

cause is shown, which prevented the petitioners from filing the review

petition within prescribed period.

4. The application is, therefore, allowed and delay in filing the review

petition is condoned.

5. Disposed of.

1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioners are seeking review of

our judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Court in LPA No.

216/2024 titled as "UT of J&K and Ors. Vs. Karamat Ullah Malik".

2. The impugned judgment is sought to be recalled primarily, on the ground,

that the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was

dismissed by this Court without taking note of the fact that the petitioners

had a strong case on merits.

3. It is argued by Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the

petitioners that the respondent was not entitled to the amount, which has

been granted by the Single Bench in terms of an order and judgment dated

28.05.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 2167/2021, as upheld by the Division

Bench by dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the

LPA No. 216/2024.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the judgment

impugned, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent

on face of record which would persuade us to recall our concluded

judgment passed on 08.04.2025 in LPA No. 216/2024.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3480-DB

5. Apart from the fact that the petitioners had failed to explain the delay of

72 days in filing the appeal, but this Court had also adverted to the merits

of the case and found that there was a clear admission on part of the

petitioners, with regard to the work executed by the respondent. The

payment claimed by the respondent was resisted only on the ground that

the work was executed by the respondent without technical sanction/

administrative approval. This plea was not accepted by the Writ Court and

same was the view of this Court while dismissing the application for

condonation of delay.

6. Viewed from any angle, we do not find it a fit case for recalling our

concluded judgment which is more or less based on the admission of the

petitioners before the writ Court.

7. Dismissed.

                            (Sanjay Parihar)                   (Sanjeev Kumar)
                                Judge                                Judge

JAMMU
17.10.2025
Rahul



                                      Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No
                                      Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No