Disposed¶24

Mubeena Parveen and Ors. v. Mohammad Iqbal Bhat and Anr.

J&K HC2 Dec 2025CM(M)/317/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Setting aside ex parte proceedings; Article 227 Constitution of India; Order VII Rule 11 CPC application dismissed; revision petition dismissed; permanent prohibitory injunction suit; Trial Court order dated 30.11.2024; ex-parte proceedings initiated 08.06.2023; affidavit evidence closed 02.05.2024; conditional relief with costs Rs.15,000/-; deemed dismissal on non-payment; one fair chance to contest suit; dilatory conduct of defendants; High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar; Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul; CM(M) No. 317/2025; Mubeena Parveen and Ors v. Mohammad Iqbal Bhat and Anr.; decided 02.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte proceedings set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the other side within one month; on failure to pay within the prescribed period, the petition stands deemed dismissed.

Mubeena Parveen and Ors. Vs Mohammad Iqbal Bhat and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Ex parte proceedings set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the other side within one month; on failure to pay within the prescribed period, the petition stands deemed dismissed.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex parte proceedings initiated against the petitioners/defendants in the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction ought to be set aside, notwithstanding their prolonged absence and dilatory conduct.

¶17

Court's answer

Despite learned counsel's submission that the petitioners were interested in prosecuting the suit, the Court found that the delay in the proceedings was attributable solely to the petitioners.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were not entitled to indulgence on account of their conduct.

¶21

Key takeaways

In order to afford the petitioners one fair chance to contest the suit, the Court set aside the ex parte proceedings, subject to appropriate terms.ratio¶21
The ex parte proceedings were set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the other side within one month from the date of the order.ratio¶22
If the petitioners fail to pay the prescribed costs within the prescribed period, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

J&K and Ladakh High Court (Srinagar), CM(M) No. 317/2025, order dated 02.12.2025 (Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.) — Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendants in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking setting aside of ex parte proceedings. Defendants had remained absent after filing written statements; ex parte proceedings were initiated on 08.06.2023; plaintiffs' affidavit evidence was recorded and closed on 02.05.2024; the defendants' application to set aside the ex parte proceedings was dismissed by the Trial Court on 30.11.2024. Their earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and a revision petition had also been dismissed. Holding the delay attributable solely to the petitioners and that they were not entitled to indulgence, the Court nonetheless set aside the ex parte proceedings to afford them one fair chance to contest the suit, subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the other side within one month, failing which the petition shall stand deemed dismissed. Petition disposed of.

¶1

S. No. 19 Regular Cause List

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CM(M) No. 317/2025

¶4

Mubeena Parveen and Ors

¶5

…Appellant/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Mohammad Iqban Jan, Advocate

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mohammad Iqbal Bhat and Anr.

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Mr. Ruaani Ahmad Baba, Advocate

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

¶13

O R D E R 02.12.2025

¶14

The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit before the Trial Court seeking a decree of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against defendant/petitioner. The defendants filed their written statements, but thereafter choose to remain absent from the proceedings.

¶15

On account of their absence, the Trial Court initiated ex-parte proceedings against the defendants on 08.06.2023. After initiation of the ex-parte proceedings, the plaintiffs led their evidence by filing affidavits in ex-parte on 02.05.2024. The evidence was recorded and closed.

¶16

Nearly one year after the commencement of ex-parte proceedings and after the closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendants moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. The said application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court vide Order dated 30.11.2024.

¶17

The present petition has been filed for seeking setting aside ex parte proceeding. Had the defendants been interested in contesting the suit, they ought to have sought setting aside of the ex parte proceedings at the earliest opportunity, instead, they waited till closure of evidence.

¶18

It further emerges from the record that the petitioners tried to delay the proceedings by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11

¶19

CPC, and thereafter a revision petition before this Court, both of which came to be dismissed. Having failed in those proceedings, they have now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are interested in prosecuting the suit, but their conduct demonstrates that the delay in proceedings is attributable solely to them.

¶21

The written statements is already on record. Though the petitioners are not entitled to indulgence on account of their conduct, in order to afford them one fair chance to contest the suit, this Court is inclined to set-aside the ex parte proceedings, subject to appropriate terms.

¶22

Accordingly, the ex parte proceedings are set-aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the other side within a period of one month from today.

¶23

In the event, petitioners fail to pay the aforesaid costs within the prescribed period, it shall be deemed that the present petition had been dismissed.

¶24

10.In view of the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE

¶26

SRINAGAR 02.12.2025 Shabroz

Mubeena Parveen and Ors. v. Mohammad Iqbal Bhat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubeena Parveen and Ors. v. Mohammad Iqbal Bhat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tariq Ahmad Bhat and Anr. Vs Mudasir Majeed Bhat and Ors.

Ghulam Mohammad and Ors. Vs Ghulam Mohammad Beigh and Ors.

Muneer Ahmad Wani Alias Teli Vs Zeenat -Ul-Islam

Mohammad Shafi Sheikh Vs Dr. Kulvinder Singh Mehta and Others

Prem Chand and Another Vs Learned Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate Rajouri and Others

Trikuta Vaishnavi Dhaam Trust Th Makhan Lal Sharma Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, Revenue Department, Jammu and Others

Sheikh Adil Ashraf Vs Mian Reyaz Ahmad and Anr. (Home Department)

Khursheed Ahmad Zargar and Anr. Vs Manager Ellaquai Dehati Bank

Abdul Gani Awan Alias Khan Molvi Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Home Department)

Ghulam Ahmad Mir Vs Mohammad Yaseen Dar

Sn International Traders Vs Sartaj Ahmad Wani

Kashmir Merchantile Cooperative Bank Limited Employees Union Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors.

Abdul Majeed Lone Vs Gulshana Bano

Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Dar S/O Mohd Rajab Dar Vs University of Kashmir and Ors.