This is a procedural order granting two months' time to the petitioner to vacate premises. The petition itself is dismissed based on the parties' agreement on the extension period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S. No. 59 Suppl Cause List-1
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CM(6154/2025) IN RP 81/2025
GULZAR AHMAD BHAT
…Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Advocate
Vs.
SYEDA BEGUM AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M. A. Makhdoomi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL-JUDGE
ORDER
10.12.2025
While arguing for a while, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he would be satisfied in case further time of two months’ time for vacating the premises is given to him and would not press this petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents-caveators submits that if the petitioner is given two months further time to vacate, he has no objection.
In view of the submissions made, while dismissing this petition, further two months’ time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question.
( VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE
Srinagar
10.12.2025.
“Imtiyaz”
Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.12.2025 15:36
Gulzar Ahmad Bhat
Syeda Begum
Vinod Chatterji Koul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
