Dismissed

Rashida Jamal v. Mohammad Younis Bhat and Others

J&K HC1 Sept 2026CM(M)/393/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought extended time to deposit security for defending a summary suit, citing health ailments. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting her business capacity and lack of merit in the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rashida Jamal Vs Mohammad Younis Bhat and Others — Service and Employment | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

Serial No. 92 Supplementary Cause List

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CM (M) No. 393/2026 CM No. 5793/2026

¶4

Rashida Jamal, Age: 55 Years D/O Mohammad Jamal Magray W/O Abdul Jabbar Magray

¶5

R/O Haripora, Bonzilla, Kangan, Kashmir.

¶6

… Petitioner(s)

¶7

Through: -

¶8

Mr Mohammad Ibrahim Mehraj, Advocate. V/s

¶9

1. Mohammad Younis Bhat S/O Ghulam Hassan Bhat

¶10

R/O Awanta Bhawan, Soura, Srinagar

¶11

Mohammad Altaf Bhat S/O Ghulam Hassan Bhat

¶12

R/O Awanta Bhawan, Soura, Srinagar.

¶13

… Contesting Respondent(s)

¶14

Abdul Jamal Magray S/O Mohammad Akbar Magray

¶15

Masroor Ahmad Magray S/O Abdul Jabbar Magray 3 & 4 Residents of Haripora, Bonzilla, Kangan, Kashmir.

¶16

… Proforma Respondent(s)

¶17

CORAM:

¶18

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE. (ORDER)

¶19

01.09.2026

¶20

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶21

The Petitioner, facing trial in a summary Suit titled ‘Mohammad Younis Bhat & Anr. v. Rashida Jamal & Ors.’ before the Principal District Court, Ganderbal, has moved this Petition to assail the Order dated 17^th of August, 2026 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the Written Statement and an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (d) read with Section 151 CPC were returned along with the amount of ₹1.00 lac, sought to be deposited against an amount of ₹5.00 lacs directed

¶22

CM (M) No. 393/2026 CM No. 5793/2026

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

by the Trial Court as well as by this Court, with a stipulation that the file shall come up for appropriate orders in view of the pleadings.

¶25

From the perusal of the pleadings available on record, it appears that the Petitioner was initially granted conditional leave to defend the Suit as one of the Defendants by the Trial Court vide Order dated 16^th of April, 2026, subject to deposit of 25% of the cheque amount of ₹1,15,65,000/-, which was later modified by the Trial Court vide Order dated 31^st of July, 2026, whereby the payment of amount of deposit of security was reduced from 25% of the cheque amount to just an amount of ₹5.00 lacs, payable within fifteen (15) days.

¶26

The Petitioner, feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid Order dated 31^st of July, 2026 passed by the Trial Court, preferred FAO No. 28/2026 before this Court which came to be dismissed in limine after hearing the parties and, resultantly, the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court directing deposit of ₹5.00 lacs was upheld.

¶27

Thereafter, on 17^th of August, 2026, the Petitioner, while appearing before the Trial Court as one of the Defendants in the Suit, moved an application to permit her to deposit an amount of ₹1.00 lac out of ₹5.00 lacs and also submitted her Written Statement, along with an application in terms of Order VII Rule 11 (a) (d) read with Section 151 CPC. However, the Trial Court did not receive the part payment of ₹1.00 lacs and returned the same to the Petitioner, with a further observation that the case shall be taken up to be disposed on the basis of the pleadings by passing appropriate orders on next date of hearing which is fixed for tomorrow, i.e., Wednesday, the 2^nd of September, 2026.

¶28

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a woman and that because of some ailments, she was not in a position to deposit the whole of the amount, as such, extension of time be granted, so that she may be able to deposit the amount of ₹5.00 lacs before the Trial Court, so as to defend the Suit filed against her.

¶29

CM (M) No. 393/2026 CM No. 5793/2026

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

Admittedly, the Petitioner was initially granted leave to defend the Suit by the Trial Court on a condition that she will deposit 25% of the cheque amount of ₹1,15,65,000/-, however, on an application moved by her, the Trial Court had taken a lenient view and reduced the amount to be deposited to ₹5.00 lacs.

¶32

The dispute between the parties is with regard to some business transactions between their business concerns and it is not comprehendible that the Petitioner, who has a business house, is not in a position to deposit the amount of ₹5.00 lacs with the Trial Court, so as to enable her to defend the Suit. From the conduct of the Petitioner, it appears that the Petitioner does not wish to deposit the amount, so that the case may proceed further. The Petitioner, even till next date fixed in the matter, which is tomorrow, before the Trial Court can deposit the amount. The Trial Court is requested to receive the amount of ₹5.00 lacs, in case it is deposited by the Petitioner by tomorrow, before proceeding further in the matter.

¶33

Viewed thus, the present Petition is found to be bereft of any merit and substance. The same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine , along with the connected CM.

¶34

Registry to forwarded a copy of this Order to the Trial Court, for information and compliance.

¶35

(M. A. CHOWDHARY) JUDGE

¶36

SRINAGAR

¶37

September 1^st , 2026

¶38

“TAHIR”

¶39

Tahir Manzoor Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rashida Jamal v. Mohammad Younis Bhat and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rashida Jamal v. Mohammad Younis Bhat and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Malik Sales Agencies Vs Jammu and Kashmir Medical Supplies Corporation Limited

Mst Sayeeda Vs Mohd Rafiq Shah and Others

Sameena Bano Vs Nasir Sheikh

Diocese of Jammu Srinagar Society Th Vice President Fr Sebastain Nagathunkal Vs Patwari Halqa Akhnoor and Others

Mahoor Gul Vs Saqib Haroon and Ors.

Ghulam Rasool Mir and Others Vs Fayaz Ahmad Reshi and Others

Omais Ul Mehraj Vs Batool Omais

Rajinder Singh Vs Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and Others