High CourtsSingle Bench(1983) 05 J&K CK 0003

Ali Mohd.Sofi vs Shama Bibi and Ors.

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 19 May 1983 · Citation: (1983) KashLJ 357 : (1983) SriLJ 290

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, C.J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 163/1980

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 329 words
1.

This revision is directed against an order dated 8111980 passed by the District Judge Budgam dismissing an application for restoration of an

application for guardianship. The order of dismissal was passed on 3041980. The application for restoration was moved on 1871980. The

guardianship application was originally pending in the Court of District Judge Srinagar wherefrom it was transferred to the Court of District Judge

Budgam as a result of the setting up of that court there. The application for restoration was accompanied by the personal affidavit of the counsel for

the applicant to the effect that the case was transferred in his absence and when he enquired about it, he was told that the parties would be

summoned, but when his client did not receive any summons for quite sometime, he went to Budgam and enquired about the case from the clerk

concerned who told him that it had been dismissed on 3041980. He immediately applied for a certified copy of the order and thereafter moved

application for restoration on 1871980. Thus the affidavit shows that the applicant came to know about the dismissal long after the event and that

he moved in the matter as soon as he came to know about it. The other side has not filed any affidavit to repudiate the averments made in the

affidavit of the learned counsel. There is no reason to disbelieve him. In the circumstances the delay as also the cause for nonappearance had been

satisfactorily explained and the learned District Judge Budgam was not justified in holding to the contrary. In this view the impugned order must be

set aside and the application for restoration must be allowed. The other side can be compensated in terms of costs for delay. Accordingly I hereby

allow this revision; set aside the impugned order and allow the application for restoration on payment of Rs. 30/ as costs. Parties are directed to

appear in the court of District Judge Budgam on 761983.