Petition dismissed on 01.09.2026 due to non-prosecution as petitioners were absent on the last date of hearing and on the date of the order, leading to an inference of lack of interest.
Petition dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of representation by the petitioners on the last date of hearing and the date of the order.
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.
Sr. No. 48
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CRM (M) No. 990/2024
Amiruddin Khan …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: None
Vs
U.T. of J&K .…. Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Assisting Counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
01.09.2026
1. The record reveals that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the last date of hearing, i.e. 27.07.2026, and same is the position today as well. Thus, an inference can be drawn that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the instant petition.
2. The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge
Jammu 01.09.2026 Nikhil
Amiruddin Khan
U.T. of J&K
Wasim Sadiq Nargal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
