Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Riyaz Ahmad Wani Age 52 Years vs Abdul Hamid Dar on 28 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No. 118/2026
Reserved on : 20.04.2026
Pronounced on: 28.04.2026
Uploaded on: 28 .04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced: Full
Riyaz Ahmad Wani age 52 years
s/o Gh. Rasool Wani ...Petitioner(s)
R/o Tragpora Rafiabad, Baramulla
Through: Mr. Parvaiz Nazir, Advocate
Vs.
Abdul Hamid Dar ...Respondent(s)
S/o Sajad Ahmad Dar
R/o Haigam Sopore Baramulla
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE.
JUDGEMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
01. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the
Lok Adalat Award dated 08.03.2025 passed in File No. 192 titled
Abdul Hamid Dar vs Riyaz Ahmad Wani and the proceedings
emanating therefrom.
02. It emerges from the record that the respondent/complainant instituted a
criminal complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sopore. The complaint was founded on two cheques
Page 1 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
bearing Nos. 426904 dated 01.06.2024 and 426905 dated 02.08.2024,each for an amount of ₹50,000/-, drawn in favour of the complainant
and maintained at J&K Bank Branch, Baramulla. The said cheques,
upon presentation, came to be dishonoured with the remarks “Funds
Insufficient and Alterations require drawer’s attention,” as reflected in
the return memos dated 11.07.2024 and 02.08.2024.
03. The material on record further reveals that the complainant had
business dealings with the brother of the petitioner, who had allegedly
taken an advance amount of ₹4,50,000/- from the complainant in
connection with supply of apple boxes, which transaction did not
fructify. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter undertook to discharge
the liability of his brother and, in furtherance thereof, issued the
aforesaid cheques in favour of the complainant. Upon dishonour of the
cheques and alleged failure to make payment within the statutory
period despite issuance of demand notice, the complaint under Section
138 NI Act came to be filed.
04. Upon issuance of process, the petitioner appeared before the learned
Magistrate, and his statement under Section 251 Code of Criminal
Procedure was recorded on 11.02.2025. In the said statement, the
petitioner acknowledged the cheque amount, while asserting that the
liability pertained to his brother, who was residing outside the country.
05. The record further indicates that on 19.02.2025, after recording the
statement of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate obtained an
undertaking from the petitioner with regard to payment of the amount
Page 2 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
involved and, instead of proceeding further with the trial, referred thematter to the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement.
06. Pursuant thereto, the matter came up before the Lok Adalat on
08.03.2025, where an award came to be passed recording that the
parties had amicably settled the dispute. In terms of the said award, the
petitioner/accused undertook to pay an amount of ₹3,80,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) to the complainant in full and
final settlement of the dispute, within the stipulated period, i.e., by the
end of March, 2025. The award further provided that in case of failure
to adhere to the terms of settlement, the petitioner herein shall be liable
to one year imprisonment and payment of double of the settled amount.
07. On the basis of the aforesaid Lok Adalat Award, the respondent
initiated execution proceedings before the competent court. It is stated
that in the course of such proceedings, the executing court proceeded
to issue coercive process, including warrants of arrest against the
petitioner, and listed the matter at short intervals for ensuring
compliance of the award.
08. Aggrieved by the Lok Adalat Award dated 08.03.2025, and the
consequential execution proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, the
petitioner has filed the present petition invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
09. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Lok
Adalat Award dated 08.03.2025 is ex facie illegal and unsustainable in
the eyes of law, inasmuch as the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
does not empower the Lok Adalat to impose penal consequences or
Page 3 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
pass an order amounting to conviction. It is contended that thedirection providing for imprisonment and payment of double the
settled amount, in case of default, travels beyond the statutory mandate
and is liable to be quashed.
10. It is further submitted that the alleged settlement was not voluntary, as
the petitioner was neither afforded adequate opportunity to peruse the
complaint nor to understand the terms thereof, and the consent was
obtained under undue influence and pressure, thereby vitiating the
entire proceedings.
11. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings before the Lok Adalat
were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the
petitioner was denied a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard,
rendering the impugned award bad in law.
12. It is also contended that the Lok Adalat has exceeded its jurisdiction by
entertaining a matter involving criminal liability and by virtually
converting the same into civil liability through execution proceedings,
which is impermissible under law.
13. Learned counsel further submits that the executing court has acted
arbitrarily and in violation of the prescribed procedure, inasmuch as no
proper notice or opportunity to show cause was granted to the
petitioner and warrants were issued in a mechanical manner, thereby
vitiating the entire execution proceedings.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
14. Heard and considered.
Page 4 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
15. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the present case, this Court
deems it appropriate to reiterate that an award passed by a Lok Adalat
on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties attains
finality, is binding upon the parties, and is executable as a decree of a
civil court. No appeal lies against such an award. However, the same
may be assailed before the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on
limited grounds, inter alia, absence of free consent, jurisdictional error,
or fraud.
16. In this regard, it may be appropriate to refer to Section 21 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987, which is extracted as under:
“21. Award of Lok Adalat.– (1) Every award of the Lok
Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as
the case may be, an order of any other court and where a
compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok
Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section
20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the
manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and
binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall
lie to any court against the award.”
17. This legal position stands consistently reiterated in a catena of cases.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab v. Jalour Singh reported as (2008)
2 SCC 660 has held as under:
“It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in
terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which
is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the
Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to
the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of
a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If
any party wants to challenge such an award based onPage 5 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under
Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too
on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or
settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok
Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the
respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order,
or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on
merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok
Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a
petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already
noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have
heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.”
18. Applying the aforesaid settled position of law to the facts of the
present case, it is evident that the impugned Lok Adalat Award dated
08.03.2025 has been passed on the basis of a settlement arrived at
between the parties and duly recorded by the Lok Adalat. The award
clearly reflects that the petitioner/accused undertook to pay an amount
of ₹3,80,000/- to the respondent/complainant in full and final
settlement of the dispute within a stipulated time frame.
19. The record further reveals that the petitioner had appeared before the
learned Magistrate, his statement under Section 251 Code of Criminal
Procedure was recorded, and thereafter, upon an undertaking given by
him with regard to payment, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat.
The petitioner, thus, was fully aware of the proceedings and
consciously participated in the settlement process, which culminated in
the passing of the impugned award.
20. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner seeking to assail
the Lok Adalat Award is wholly misconceived. Once a settlement has
been voluntarily arrived at and an award has been passed in terms
Page 6 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
thereof, the same attains finality and becomes binding upon the parties,
being executable as a decree of a civil court in terms of Section 21 of
the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
21. The grounds on which such an award can be interfered with in exercise
of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are
extremely limited, namely absence of free consent, fraud, or
jurisdictional error. In the present case, no material has been brought
on record to demonstrate that the petitioner’s consent was vitiated by
coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, or that the Lok Adalat acted
without jurisdiction.
22. Mere subsequent failure on the part of the petitioner to adhere to the
terms of settlement cannot be a ground to invalidate an otherwise
lawful and binding Lok Adalat Award. Permitting such challenges
would defeat the very object of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987, which is to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes through
consensual settlement.
23. It is further to be noticed that the petitioner, at no point prior to the
passing of the award, raised any objection with regard to the reference
of the matter to the Lok Adalat or the terms of settlement recorded
therein. Having participated in the proceedings and having consciously
undertaken to discharge the liability, the petitioner is under law
estopped from resiling from the same at a subsequent stage, merely, on
account of inconvenience or inability to comply.
24. The conduct of the petitioner also assumes significance inasmuch as,
despite having acknowledged the cheque amount during the
Page 7 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
proceedings before the learned Magistrate, he chose to settle the matter
before the Lok Adalat and derive the benefit of avoidance of criminal
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Having availed such benefit, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to
approbate and reprobate by challenging the very settlement which was
voluntarily entered into.
25. The material placed on record further demonstrates that, although the
petitioner has purported to lay a challenge to the award passed by the
Lok Adalat, no challenge, whatsoever, has been thrown to the
execution proceedings arising therefrom. A careful reading of the
pleadings further reveals that even in the prayer clause, there is no
specific challenge to the execution proceedings, and only a vague and
general reference to the Lok Adalat and subsequent proceedings is
made
26. In the absence of any explicit challenge to the execution proceedings,
the present petition, insofar as it seeks to assail the consequences
flowing from such proceedings, is legally untenable.
27. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not
maintainable, this defect going to the very root of the matter and
striking at the maintainability of the petition itself. In the absence of a
specific challenge to the execution proceedings, no relief can be
granted, and the petition is liable to fail on this ground alone.
28. Furthermore, the conduct of the petitioner unmistakably demonstrates
a complete lack of bona fides in relation to compliance with the award.
If the petitioner was genuinely dissatisfied with the terms and
Page 8 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
conditions embodied therein, there was no occasion for him to have
consented to the award in the first place. He could very well have
withdrawn from the proceedings, as is permissible in law, instead of
consciously participating therein and appending his signature to the
settlement. His active participation and express consent clearly
indicate that he had accepted the award at the relevant point in time.
The subsequent challenge, raised only after the commencement of
execution proceedings, gives rise to a legitimate inference that the
petitioner merely intended to buy time by participating in the
proceedings and had no real intention either to honour the settlement
or to question it at the appropriate stage. Such conduct is wholly
inconsistent with fairness and reflects an absence of bona fides.
29. Insofar as the petitioner’s submission that the impugned award dated
08.03.2025, by incorporating stipulations of imprisonment and
payment of double the settled amount upon default, travels beyond the
scope of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, on the ground that a
Lok Adalat lacks penal jurisdiction, thereby rendering the award ex
facie illegal and liable to be quashed, is concerned, upon closer
scrutiny does not withstand legal examination.
30. At the outset, the scheme of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
makes it clear that a Lok Adalat does not exercise adjudicatory powers
in the strict sense, much less any criminal or penal jurisdiction. Its role
is confined to facilitating a voluntary settlement between the parties,
and the award so passed derives its binding force not from an
adjudication on merits, but from the consensus ad idem of the parties.
Page 9 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
Section 21 of the Act gives such an award the status of a decree of a
civil court, rendering it final and binding.
31. However, this statutory limitation does not imply that parties are
precluded from incorporating deterrent or default clauses within the
terms of their settlement. A compromise may validly include
stipulations providing for enhanced liability upon breach, so as to
secure performance. Such clauses are neither uncommon nor
impermissible; rather, they are recognised incidents of a binding
settlement, unless they are shown to be opposed to law.
32. In the present case, the stipulation providing for payment of a higher
amount in the event of default is clearly compensatory and coercive in
a civil sense, intended to ensure compliance with the settlement. It
cannot, by any stretch, be equated with the imposition of a “penalty” in
the criminal law sense. The petitioner, having voluntarily agreed to
such a term, cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by
accepting the benefit of settlement while repudiating its burdens.
33. As regards the clause referring to “imprisonment”, it must be
construed in its proper legal context. A Lok Adalat, undoubtedly,
cannot order conviction or impose a sentence of imprisonment. Any
such consequence does not flow from the award per se, but, if at all,
from the process of enforcement in accordance with law. Once an
award attains the status of a civil decree, its enforcement is governed
by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that process, the
executing court may, subject to statutory safeguards, resort to
permissible coercive measures for enforcement of a decree, including
Page 10 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
those contemplated under Order XXI. Therefore, the mere presence of
a clause alluding to coercive consequences does not render the award
without jurisdiction; at best, it is a reflection of the legal consequences
that may follow upon non-compliance.
34. Importantly, the petitioner has neither alleged nor established that the
settlement was vitiated by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or lack
of free consent.The absence of such foundational pleadings, the
challenge essentially seeks to reopen a concluded settlement on
technical grounds, which runs contrary to the very object of the Act,
namely, to ensure finality and expeditious resolution of disputes.
35. Viewed thus, the impugned award cannot be characterised as ex facie
illegal or beyond jurisdiction. The grievance, if any, pertains not to the
competence of the Lok Adalat to record the settlement, but to the
consequences of its breach–an aspect that squarely falls within the
domain of execution proceedings.
36. It would be profitable, at this stage, to advert to Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which statutorily engrafts
consequences for the dishonour of a cheque on account of
insufficiency of funds or where it exceeds the arrangement with the
bank. The provision unequivocally declares such dishonour to
constitute an offence and renders the drawer liable to punishment with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine
which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.
37. For facility of reference, Section 138 is reproduced hereunder:
“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.–
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by
Page 11 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another
person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part,
of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account
is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount
arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with
that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence
and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two
years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both.”
38. Viewed in the aforesaid statutory backdrop, the challenge laid by the
petitioner loses much of its force. The stipulations forming part of the
impugned award do not introduce any alien or impermissible
consequence; rather, they mirror the very contours of liability that the
legislature itself has contemplated in cases of cheque dishonour.
39. Thus, the petitioner’s attempt to characterise the stipulations in the
award as being contrary to law is misconceived and unsustainable.
40. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned Lok Adalat Award
dated 08.03.2025 is hereby upheld and shall continue to remain
binding upon the parties, being enforceable in accordance with law.
41. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
POSTSCRIPT
42. Before parting with the instant matter, this Court deems it necessary to
emphasise the raison d’être behind the introduction of Lok Adalats
and the necessity which impelled the legislature to conceive such a
mechanism under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
43. The institution of Lok Adalats was envisaged as a pragmatic response
to the ever-increasing burden before regular courts, with the object of
Page 12 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
providing a speedy, efficacious and cost-effective forum for resolution
of disputes through the process of conciliation and mutual settlement.
The underlying philosophy was to promote access to justice by
encouraging amicable resolution, thereby reducing the burden on the
formal judicial system and preserving valuable judicial time.
44. It was in recognition of these objectives that Lok Adalats were
designed not as adjudicatory bodies, but as conciliatory forums, where
disputes are resolved through consensus rather than by determination
on merits. The success of this mechanism, therefore, hinges upon
adherence to its foundational principles of voluntariness, fairness and
absence of coercion.
45. It is in this backdrop, Rule 13 of the National Legal Services Authority
(Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009, which prescribes the procedure to be
followed by Lok Adalats is very pertinent and the same is reproduced
hereunder for facility of reference:
“Procedure in Lok Adalats.–
(1) Members of Lok Adalat have the role of statutory conciliators
only and have no judicial role and they, mutatis mutandis, may
follow the procedure laid down in sections 67 to 76 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).
(2) Members of Lok Adalat shall not pressurise or coerce any of the
parties to compromise or settle cases or matters, either directly or
indirectly.
(3) In a Lok Adalat, the members shall discuss the subject matter
with the parties for arriving at a just settlement or compromise and
such members of the Lok Adalat shall assist the parties in an
independent and impartial manner in their attempt to reach an
amicable settlement of their dispute:
Provided that if it is found necessary, the assistance of an
independent person or a trained mediator may also be availed of
by the Lok Adalat.
Page 13 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
(4) Members of Lok Adalat shall be guided by principles of natural
justice, equity, fair play, objectivity, giving consideration to, among
other things, the rights and obligations of the parties, custom and
usages, and the circumstances surrounding the dispute.
(5) The Lok Adalat may conduct the proceedings in such manner as
it considers appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of
the case, wishes of the parties including any request by a party to
the Lok Adalat to hear oral statements, and the need for a speedy
settlement of the dispute.
(6) The Lok Adalat shall not determine a reference at its own
instance, but shall determine only on the basis of a compromise or
settlement between the parties by making an award in terms of the
compromise or settlement arrived at:
Provided that no Lok Adalat has the power to hear the parties to
adjudicate their dispute as a regular court:
Provided further that the award of the Lok Adalat is neither a
verdict nor an opinion arrived at by any decision-making process.”
46. A conjoint and purposive reading of the aforesaid provision,
particularly Rule 13(1) and the second proviso to Rule 13(6) of the
National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009,
makes it clear that the Members of Lok Adalat function solely as
statutory conciliators and are divested of any adjudicatory role. The
award that emanates from such proceedings is not the result of a
judicial determination but merely a voluntary settlement arrived at
between the parties.
47. This Court deems it appropriate to observe that the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 envisages Lok Adalats as an efficacious
mechanism of alternate dispute resolution, intended to foster amicable
settlements, reduce adversarial litigation, and consequently ease the
mounting burden on regular courts, thereby conserving valuable
judicial time.
Page 14 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
48. However, the practical experience has, in certain cases, belied this
salutary object. Instead of acting as an effective instrument for
reducing pendency, Lok Adalats, on occasion, appear to have
contributed to further litigation, thereby frustrating the very purpose
for which they were conceived.
49. This Court is constrained to observe that, day in and day out, it is
coming across cases where parties seek to challenge awards passed by
Lok Adalats. This growing tendency leads to the unnecessary
invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court and results in a waste
of valuable judicial time, which ought to be devoted to genuine and
deserving matters. The very object behind the establishment of Lok
Adalats, that is, to ensure expeditious, amicable and cost-effective
resolution of disputes and to reduce the burden on regular courts, is
defeated when such awards are routinely and indiscriminately brought
under challenge.
50. This leads to the moot question as to what has gone awry in the
functioning of Lok Adalats so as to render their foundational objective,
that is, amicable settlement and reduction of judicial burden, largely
illusory.
51. The answer, in the considered view of this Court, lies in the manner of
discharge of duties both by the parties as well as by the Members
constituting the Lok Adalat. The statutory scheme casts a
corresponding obligation on both. The parties are expected to approach
the Lok Adalat with bona fides and a genuine intent to resolve their
disputes. They cannot be permitted to act in a mischievous or evasive
Page 15 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
manner by ostensibly consenting to a settlement during the
proceedings and thereafter resiling from the same, thereby setting at
naught the sanctity of the process and inviting further rounds of
litigation.
52. Equally, the Members constituting the Lok Adalat are under a solemn
duty to ensure that the settlement arrived at is voluntary, informed, and
lawful, and not the result of any coercion, undue influence or
misapprehension. They must scrupulously adhere to the mandate of
Rule 13 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats)
Regulations, 2009 and refrain from assuming any adjudicatory posture
or from imposing terms upon the parties. The role of the Members is
facilitative and not determinative, and any deviation therefrom would
vitiate the very foundation of the award.
53. At the same time, this Court deems it necessary to emphasise that Lok
Adalats, while facilitating settlements and passing awards, must
exercise due care to ensure that the terms and conditions incorporated
therein are unambiguous, practicable, and capable of effective
enforcement. Any stipulation that is inherently impracticable, or
incapable of execution is bound to generate further disputes, thereby
defeating the very object of settlement and giving rise to avoidable
rounds of litigation.
54. An award must be capable of implementation in its true letter and spirit.
Terms which are vague, unduly onerous, or contingent upon uncertain
events beyond the control of the parties render the settlement illusory
and incapable of execution. The inclusion of such impracticable
Page 16 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
conditions not only diminishes the efficacy of the award but also sows
the seeds for further disputes at the stage of enforcement.
55. The members of the Lok Adalat must, therefore, ensure that the terms
embodied in the award are precise, realistic, and capable of compliance
within the framework of law. Directions which the parties cannot
reasonably perform, or which are inherently incapable of enforcement,
ought not to find place in the award. What is unenforceable in law
should not be stipulated in the first instance.
56. Ultimately, the efficacy and credibility of a Lok Adalat award lie in its
workability and enforceability. The members would do well to confine
the settlement to lawful, practicable, and executable terms, so that the
award achieves its intended purpose of bringing finality to the dispute,
rather than engendering further litigation.
57. It is imperative that the rules engrafted under Rule 13 of National
Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 are strictly
observed in its letter and spirit. Only such awards as are founded upon
a genuine, lawful and consensual compromise between the parties can
sustain the test of legality. Any award which travels beyond this
limited jurisdiction, or which is impracticable, unconscionable or
contrary to law, cannot be sustained and would be liable to be
interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
58. It is, therefore, incumbent upon both the parties participating in the
Lok Adalat proccedings and the Members constituting the Lok Adalat
to remain conscious of the nature and limits of the proceedings. While
the parties must ensure that any settlement entered into is voluntary,
Page 17 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026
lawful and capable of enforcement, the Members constituting the Lok
Adalat are equally obliged to confine themselves strictly to recording
such settlement as arrived at, without superimposing any extraneous,
coercive or legally impermissible conditions. Any deviation on either
count not only renders the award susceptible to judicial scrutiny but
also erodes the credibility and efficacy of the Lok Adalat mechanism
as an effective forum for alternative dispute resolution.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
28.04.2026
Shamim Ah. Dar/PSWhether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: YesPage 18 of 18 CM(M) No. 118/2026