HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

OWP No. 239/2015

IA No. 348/2015

Karnail Singh and Others

….Petitioner (s)

Through :-

Mr. Ashwani Thakur, Advocate

V/s

J and K Special Tribunal and Others

….Respondent(s)

Through :- None.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

ORDER

03.03.2022

1.

In this petition, the petitioners have called in question the order dated

09.02.2015 passed by J & K Special Tribunal, whereby the revision petition (File

No. STJ/73/2003) titled <Ranjeet Singh v. Shamsher Singh= has been

dismissed in default of appearance, as also the order dated 11.02.2015 whereby

the application for recalling the aforesaid order of dismissal and restoring the

revision petition has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the date the case

was called out by the Court of Chairperson of J & K Special Tribunal i.e.

09.02.2015, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was bit late in

appearing in the Court, and by the time he went to the Court to appear in the

matter, the revision petition stood already dismissed for non-prosecution. He

obtained a certified copy of the order which was provided to him on 10.02.2015

Sr. No. 02

2

OWP No. 239/2015

and accordingly, he moved an application seeking restoration of the revision

petition on 11.02.2015.

3.

It is argued that the learned Tribunal without even putting the other

side on notice, dismissed the application in limine on the ground that the

petitioner had also remained absent on the previous dates of hearing before the

Tribunal. The Tribunal also found fault with the application on the ground that it

was not supported by an affidavit but did not provide an opportunity to the

petitioner to cure the said defect.

4.

The notice in this petition was issued to the respondents on

09.03.2015 and by way of interim order passed on the said date, the operation of

the impugned order was stayed.

5.

Despite repeated efforts made, the respondents could not be served and

accordingly, this Court permitted the service of the private respondents through

substituted service. Accordingly, the publication was made but since nobody

turned up to appear for the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 despite publication, they

were set ex-parte vide order dated 15.02.2022.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

material on record, I am of the view that the approach adopted by the Tribunal is

extremely narrow and cryptic. In the first place, the revision petition should not

have been dismissed for non-prosecution. The revision petition, it needs no

emphasis, can be decided by the Court even in the absence of revision petitioner

having regard to the merits of the case. That apart, the revision petition was

dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.02.20215, and the petitioner was quick to

file an application for restoration. He applied for a certified copy on 10^th and the

same was provided to him on 11^th. On 11.02.2015, he filed an application for

3

OWP No. 239/2015

restoration. The application for restoration was within time, and therefore, a

liberal approach ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal.

7.

Be that as it may, without going much into the matter, I find merit in

this petition, and the same is accordingly allowed.

8.

The order dated 11.02.2015 as also the 09.02.2015 are quashed, the

revision petition on file No. STJ/73/2003 pending before the J & K Special

Tribunal is restored to its original number. Let the petitioner appear before the

Tribunal on 17.03.2022.

9.

The Tribunal shall proceed in the matter after putting the respondents

to notice and decide the r