The High Court dismissed two writ petitions (OW104 Nos. 87/2013 and 32/2013) for non-prosecution due to the petitioners' absence on consecutive hearing dates.
Petitions dismissed for non-prosecution; interim directions vacated.
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. 20
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
OW104 No. 87/2013 c/w OW104 No. 32/2013
Munshi Singh and another …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: None
Vs
Swaran Singh
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Rakesh Sadotra, Advocate
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
01.09.2026
OW104 No. 87/2013
1. The record reveals that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the last two dates of hearing, i.e. 22.07.2026 and 09.03.2026, 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.
OW104 No. 32/2013
1. The record reveals that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the last date of hearing, i.e. 29.04.2014, 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 Rahul Sharma
Munshi Singh
Swaran Singh
Wasim Sadiq Nargal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
