Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mst. Zaina vs Mehra-Ud-Din Malla S/O Nunda Malla on 11 March, 2026
Author: Justicejaved Iqbal Wani
Bench: Justicejaved Iqbal Wani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
.......
RP No. 85/2025 in
CR No. 16/2024
Pronounced on 11.03.2026.
Uploaded on 18 .03.2026.
Mst. Zaina, D/O Late Abdul Sattar Mir.
W/O Abdul Samad Mir
R/O Hussipora Tehsil, Chadoora, District, Budgam.
....... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abdul Hanan, Advocate.
Versus
1. Mehra-ud-din Malla S/o Nunda Malla.
2. Mst. Jani D/O Nunda Malla W/O Mohd Ashraf Teli
R/OsHussipora Tehsil, Chadoora, District, Budgam.
3. Hajira Alias Azi D/O Nunda Malla W/O Hafizulla Lone
R/O Nagam Tehsil Chadoora, District Budgam.
......Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sajad Ahmad Sofi, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEJAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
11.03.2026.
1. The instant Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking
review of judgment and order dated 10thSeptember, 2025, passed in CR
No. 16/2025, titled as “Mehraj-ud-din Malla & Ors. V. Mst. Zaina”.
2. According to the petitioner while being impleaded as contesting
respondent in the civil revision supra upon hearing of the said revision
petition on 08th September, 2025 partly, same was directed to be listed on
10th September, 2025, for further consideration, however, the Registry
though notified the date of listing of the matter on 17 th September, 2025,
yet the matter came up for consideration before the Court on 10 th
September, 2025, and came to be decided the matter on the said date and
that owing to the change/preponing of the date from 17 th September, 2025
2
RP No. 85/2025
to 10th September, 2025, the petitioner herein could not cause appearance
and contest the revision petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
03. Perusal of the record tends to show that the revision petition supra initially
came to be partly heard on 3rd September, 2025, upon hearing counsel for
the petitioner and counsel for the respondents (Petitioner herein) as well
and the matter was adjourned for continuation of arguments of the counsel
for the respondents at his request and directed to be listed for further
consideration on 4th September, 2025.
04. Record of the proceedings however, reveals that on 4th September, 2025,
the counsel for the respondent-petitioner herein did not choose to appear
and the Court directed the listing of the matter on 8th September, 2025, as
case number 1 with further direction to the Registry to notify the date to
the then counsel, appearing for the respondent-petitioner herein.
05. Record of the proceedings would further reveal that on 8 th September,
2025, yet again the counsel for the respondent-petitioner herein did not
choose to appear, so much so, the respondent as well did not appear in
person, as a consequence whereof, the respondent-petitioner herein was
setex-parte and the matter was directed to be listed for further
consideration on 10th September, 2025, and on 10th September, 2025,
again neither the counsel for the respondent-petitioner herein appeared nor
did the petitioner herein appeared and consequently the judgment and
order under review came to be passed.
3
RP No. 85/2025
06. Record from the e-court pertaining to the case in hand came to be
summoned by this Court having regard to the plea raised by the petitioner
herein which inter-alia reveals that the order dated 8th September, 2025,
i.e, the date on which the respondent-petitioner herein came to be set ex-
parte and the matter was directed to be listed for further consideration on
10th September, 2025, stands uploaded on the website of this Court on the
said date, i.e, on 8th September, 2025, itself, thereby suggesting the
information of listing of the case as also the nature of proceedings
conducted on the said date. However, date notification of the record of the
e-courtreveals that the date next date fixed in the matter has been shown as
17thSeptember, 2025, after 8thSeptember, 2025instead of 10thSeptember,
2025.
07. Since the precise plea raised by the petitioner herein is that the petitioner
was awaiting to attend the case on 17th September, 2025, based upon the
date notified by the e-court and had no knowledge about the listing of the
case on 10th September, 2025, yet the petitioner has remained silent as
toon which date the petitioner came to know about the status of the case,
fixed in the e-court notification for 17th September, 2025. As has been
noticed in the preceding paras, the date fixed in the case on 8th September,
2025, had been 10th September, 2025 recorded in the order passed by the
Court which order had been uploaded on the website of this Court and on
the said date the petitioner herein had been set ex parte, as such, the e-
court notification showing the date as 17th September, 2025 loses
significance.
4
RP No. 85/2025
08. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, this Court
does not find ground much less recognized by law requiring the review of
the judgment and order.
09. The Review Petition is found grossly misconceived and is accordingly
dismissed.
(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge
Srinagar
11.03.2026.
“Ab. Rashid PS”
Whether the judgment/order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the judgement/order is reportable: Yes/No