Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Nibras Fayaz And Another vs Dilshada Farooq on 6 March, 2026
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Sindhu Sharma
Sr. No. 18
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(through Virtual Mode)
CM No. 188/2026 in
FAO (D) No. 13/2025
Nibras Fayaz and another .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Hilal Ahmed Wani, Advocate
V/s
Dilshada Farooq .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Wajid Mohd Haseeb, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
06.03.2026
CM No. 188/2026
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 254 days in
filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2025
passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar,
[“the Commercial Court”] in a civil suit titled “Mrs. Dilshada Farooq
Vs. Ms. Nibras Fayaz and another.” The delay in filing the appeal has
been sought to be explained in the following manner:
(i) That the judgment and decree sought to be impugned in
the appeal was passed on 04.03.2025
(ii) That the applicant/appellant, instead of filing of an
appeal, preferred a review petition before the same Court
on 12.04.2025, which review petition came to be
dismissed by the Commercial Court on 27.11.2025.
(iii) That the appeal along with the application for
condonation of delay was filed on 24.12.2025. It is thus,
contended that if the time which was spent by the
applicant/appellant in pursuing the review petition is
excluded, the appeal would be within time.
CM No. 188/2026 _________ Page 2 of 2
2. Per contra, Mr. Wajid Mohd Haseeb, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent, would submit that the case of the applicant/appellant
would not be covered by the Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in that,
it is not a case of the applicant/appellant that he was pursuing a
remedy before a Court having no jurisdiction.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record, we are of the considered opinion that the
applicant/appellant has demonstrated sufficient cause which
prevented him from filing the appeal in time. The time spent by the
applicant/appellant in pursuing the review petition, i.e., w.e.f
12.04.2025 to 27.11.2025, needs to be ignored for the reason that
applicant/appellant was pursuing a remedy available to him under
law.
4. If the aforesaid period is condoned by the aid of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, the appeal would be within time. For the reasons
stated above, this application is allowed and the delay in filing the
appeal is condoned.
FAO (D) No. 13/2025
1. List for consideration on 10.04.2026.
(SINDHU SHARMA) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu:
06.03.2026
Shafqat