[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Farooq Ahmad Bhat vs Haji Habibullah Sheikh on 18 February, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No. 05
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CFA No. 94/2012
Farooq Ahmad Bhat ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Prince Hamza, Advocate vice
Mr. Arfat Rashid Lone, Advocate
Vs.
Haji Habibullah Sheikh ...Respondent(s)
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
18.02.2026
1. The Court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag, in
a civil suit on file No. 48/Suit of 2010 instituted on
28.12.2010 by the plaintiff-Haji Habib Ullah
Sheikh, S/o Gh. Mohammad Sheikh, R/o Shelipora
Tehsil & District Anantnag, in which a decree for
recovery of Rs. 8.00 lacs was claimed against the
defendant-Farooq Ahmad Bhat, came to pass
judgment and decree dated 01.05.2012 thereby
decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs. 8.00 lacs with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. The maintainability of suit had taken place under
Order 37 of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil
Procedure, Samvat 1977 (1920 A.D).
3. Against said money decree, the defendant/judgment
debtor-Farooq Ahmad Bhat came forward with
institution of a civil first appeal under Section 96 of
Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure,
Samvat 1977 (1920 A.D) before this Court on
18.07.2012.
4. The appeal came to be diarized as CFA No.
94/2012, wherein the sole respondent was the
plaintiff/decree holder-Haji Habibullah Sheikh.
5. By virtue of an order dated 19.07.2012, this Court
directed issuance of notice to the respondent/decree
holder-Haji Habibullah Sheikh and, in the meantime
stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and
decree.
6. Before service of the respondent/decree holder-Haji
Habibullah Sheikh could take place, the civil first
appeal CFA No. 94/2012 came to suffer dismissal
for non-prosecution on account of two consecutive
defaults in appearance on the part of the
appellant/judgment debtor-Farooq Ahmad Bhat as
well as his counsel.
7. The dismissal of the appeal had taken place in terms
of order dated 22.05.2013 when the service of the
respondent/decree holder was yet to take effect.
8. From the record of the file, be it physical as well as
digital, it is not forthcoming as to whether the
appellant/judgment debtor-Farooq Ahmad Bhat
ever came forward with any application for seeking
restoration of his appeal dismissed in terms of said
order dated 22.05.2013.
9. Incidentally, with passing of the order dated
22.05.2013, the next judicial order on the file is that
of 14.05.2019. Intervening period proceedings are
not gatherable from the file as it is obtaining in its
current form.
10. On the revived date of proceedings on 14.05.2019,
this Court came to observe that there is no
representation on behalf of the respondent/decree
holder- Haji Habibullah Sheikh and that even there
are no objections filed from his end and, therefore,
on the basis of the grounds urged in the application
IA No. 01/2016, said application was allowed and
CFA No. 94/2012 was ordered restored to its
original number.
11. Now, if IA No. 01/2016 stood allowed, then an
application No. 02/2016, which was filed on
28.12.2016 by the applicant/appellant-Farooq
Ahmad Bhat whereby the legal representative-Noor-
Ud-Din Sheikh son of deceased respondent/decree
holder-Haji Habibullah Sheikh was sought to be
brought on record on account of the fact that the
sole respondent/decree holder-Haji Habibullah
Sheikh had expired in September, 2016, remained
unattended for the reasons not discernible from the
record of this case.
12. From tone of the application No. 02/2016 obviously
the substitution of legal representative was sought
by reference to the restoration application meaning
thereby even the restoration order dated
14.05.2019 was passed against a dead person or in
absence of the actual respondent/decree holder-Haji
Habibullah Sheikh who by that time was a dead
person which fact being not taken due notice by this
Court is a serious error of oversight on the part of
this Court.
13. Proceedings from 14.05.2019 remained pending
just for the sake of issuance of notice to the
respondent least knowing to which respondent when
the actual respondent/decree holder-Haji
Habibullah Sheikh was no more alive with effect
from September 2016 and it never occurred to the
counsel for the appellant/applicant to take the pain
of apprising this Court about the true state of
proceedings.
14. In this meaningless state of proceedings, the case
again came to suffer dismissal for non-prosecution
in terms of order dated 26.11.2024.
15. To place the matter in proper perspective, it is
necessary to observe that before allowing the
restoration application IA No. 01/2016 on
14.05.2019, the application for brining on record
the legal representative of the deceased respondent
ought to have been considered and decided.
16. All along from 14.05.2019, the appellant/applicant-
Farooq Ahmad Bhat did not bother to file an
application for bringing on record the legal
representative of the respondent/decree holder-Haji
Habibullah Sheikh in the main appeal and now it is
almost ten years of the proceedings with effect from
date of death of respondent/decree holder-Haji
Habibullah Sheikh that this case is on the docket of
this Court aimlessly lost in its correct bearing when
in fact the civil first appeal at no point of time was
ever restored or could not have been restored.
17. The very fact that only on the very first date of
hearing on 19.07.2012, the counsel for the
appellant/applicant had caused appearance to earn
stay of operation of the impugned decree and
thereafter absenting himself clearly meant that
appellant risked the dismissal of the matter at his
own cost and which cost is that the civil first appeal
got abated because of a death of the
respondent/decree holder-Haji Habibullah Sheikh.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is held to have been abated
by reference to the date of death of the sole
respondent/decree holder-Haji Habibullah Sheikh
from September 2016.
19. In view of the above, the appeal shall be deemed and
have been dismissed as abated.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
18.02.2026
Shabroz
