[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Of J And K And Others vs Farooq Ahmad Dar on 13 February, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
112
Suppl-I
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(305/2026) in RFA 7/2026
CM(306/2026.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS.
...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, Government Advocate with
Mr. Shaila Shameem, Assisting Counsel.
VERSUS
FAROOQ AHMAD DAR.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ali Mohammad Dar, Advocate for Caveator.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
ORDER
13.02.2026
01. The respondent-Farooq Ahmad Dar approached the Court of
Additional District Judge, Pulwama by filing a civil suit on File No. 58/N
instituted on 23.09.2021 thereby seeking a money decree for recovery of
an amount of Rs. 1,20,078/- on account of contract work executed by
him, in respect whereof the said amount remained unpaid from the end
of the defendants who were the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and its
officials.
02. The institution of suit by the respondent had taken place after
having first put the defendants on notice under section 80 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby affording the prospective defendants an
opportunity of two months to examine his case in the matter of payment
of the money being claimed by him for which he was intending to go for a
civil suit by putting them on notice.
03. At this initial stage, the would be defendants least bothered to
respond to the notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 sent from the respondent's end.
04. Upon suit being instituted, the defendants, through their counsel,
appeared and filed written statement not denying the allotment of the
work or its execution by the respondent. The only plea which is said to
have been pressed into written statement for non-payment of amount
was the alleged non-availability of funds.
05. On behalf of the defendants, their standing counsel appeared before
the Court below and made a preliminary statement under Order 10 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 admitting the liability resting upon the
defendants which led the trial court to press into service in terms of
Order 12 rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 decreeing the suit
on the basis of such admission.
06. Thus, the fact of decreeing of the suit of the respondent was all along
well known to the defendants who upon passing of the decree, became
judgment debtors yet it did not occur to any of the defendants in the civil
suit to become concerned to challenge the decree by filing a civil first
appeal within the time prescribed under the law of limitation which is
equally applicable to an ordinary suitor as well as to the State without
any exception.
07. The judgment debtors now intend to maintain a civil first appeal
against said money decree of the Court of Additional District Judge,
Pulwama.
08. However, since the appeal is time-barred as such accompanied with
an application- CM No. 305/2026 thereby seeking condonation of delay
of 956 days. The application has been signed by the Executive Engineer
Irrigation Division Pulwama (Estate Section) and is supported by an
affidavit of the incumbent - Sami-ullah-Naik.
09. In the entire condonation of delay application, no explanation with
respect to the delay of 956 days has been furnished. None of the
defendants, in particular defendants 2 to 5- all being officers of the
Engineering Department, have shown any sufficient cause for such
delay. If any of them had suffered loss of salary even for a single day, no
one would have spared a day more in approaching the Court by filing a
writ petition seeking release of one-day salary withheld, but when it
comes to matters concerning Public Exchequer, delay of every hue and
description is first allowed to set in without any sense of accountability
to law, as if in the name of an application for condonation of delay, the
doors of the Courts are meant to be kept always open in favour of the
State as well as its officials. There appears to be a misplaced
understanding of the law of limitation on the part of the UT of Jammu
and Kashmir and its officials, who are now seeking condonation of delay
from this Court.
10. The application is found to be factless and frivolous, as such, is
dismissed.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
13.02.2026
Bisma Jan.
