1

S. No. 18

Regular Cause List

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

OWP No. 1011/2013

Bata India Limited and Ors.

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawaja, Advocate

Vs.

Bakshi Naseer Ahmad and Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. M. A. Makhdoomi, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

O R D E R (ORAL)

14.02.2023

1.

In the instant petition Supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court is being

invoked by the petitioners for quashment of orders dated 27.03.2013

and 18.06.2013 (for short ‘the impugned orders’) passed by the Court

of 2^nd Sub Judge (Passenger Tax) (for short ‘the trial Court’) in case

titled as “Bakshi Naseer and Ors. Vs. Bata India Limited and Ors”.

2.

The facts those stem out from the petition would reveal that a suit for

eviction came to be filed by the plaintiffs- respondents herein against

the defendants-petitioners herein before the trial Court.

3.

The said suit is stated to have got dismissed in default and

subsequently restored subject to the costs paid by the respondents

herein on 07.12.2012, when the petitioners herein had sought an

opportunity to file written statement. The case is stated to have been

posted on the said date for further proceedings on 22.01.2013, on

which date none had appeared on behalf of the defendants/petitioners

herein and matter posted for 05.02.2013 on which date again none

appeared on behalf of defendants/petitioners and matter came to be

posted on 12.02.2013.

4.

It is being stated that non-appearance of the defendants/petitioners on

the aforesaid dates was on account of non appearance of the counsel

who had gone out of the valley during winter vacations and had

2

extended his stay after expiry of the said vacations and though the

counsel had requested his associate to cause appearance in the case

but the said associate had failed to cause appearance before the trial

Court.

5.

It is being further stated that on 12.02.2013 the valley was put under

curfew and nobody could cause appearance before the Courts, as such,

the matter was posted for further proceedings on 07.03.2013 and in

the meantime, the counsel for defendants/petitioners are stated to have

prepared the written statement and sent for getting signatures of the

defendants/petitioners to Gurgoan Haryana.

6.

It is being next stated that during the months of February and March

2013 the turmoil contributed towards the delay in the matter and that

on 27.03.2013 the counsel for the petitioners appeared before the trial

Court along with written statement but the trial Court refused to take

the same on record on the ground that the time for filing of the written

statement had already expired and that no formal application for

extension of time had been filed, as such, necessitated filing of a

formal application for extension of time with permission for filing

written statement before the trial Court by the petitioners herein,

however, the trial Court in terms of impugned order dated 18.06.2013

rejected the same.

7.

The impugned order is being challenged on the following grounds: -

(i) For that the learned trial Court has exercised its

jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and

passed impugned orders that have occasioned failure of

justice and caused irreparable injury to the petitioners. It is

submitted that petitioners had filed a detailed application

seeking extension of time for the reasons given in the

application. The circumstances projected in the application

particularly the fact that learned trial Court was closed on

12.02.2013 and that there was turmoil during the months

of February and March and that written statement had to

be vetted at Gurgaon Haryana, warranted extension of

time to advance cause of justice. It is submitted that

learned trial Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction,

with which it is very much invested, and extended the time.