HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRMC No.416/2013 Suraj Parkash Bamotra …..Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: None. Vs State of J&K and another .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Assisting Counsel Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 02.07.2026 1. The record reveals that the matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner on 01.07.2022. Thereafter, another request for adjournment was made on behalf of the petitioner, as recorded in the order dated 08.06.2023. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned at the request of counsel for both the parties. Thereafter, due to non-availability of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was again adjourned vide order dated 07.11.2023. 2. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court was constrained to pass the order dated 19.12.2023, whereby the matter was adjourned, reluctantly, with the specific rider that no further adjournment would be granted on any count whatsoever, as is evident from a perusal of the said. While passing the aforesaid order, it was also made clear that, in the event of the non-availability of Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Advocate, the matter shall be argued by some other counsel positively on the next date of hearing. Despite the aforesaid direction, the matter was again adjourned on 24.09.2024 due to non-availability of the arguing counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, another adjournment was sought Sr. No. 22 2 CRMC No.416/2013 on behalf of the learned Senior counsel on 28.11.2024. Even today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Today, when the instant petition was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to drawn an inference that the proceedings have been unnecessarily prolonged at the instance of the petitioner by seeking repeated adjournments, thereby wasting the valuable judicial time of the Court. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed for non-prosecution along with all connected application(s). 4. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge Jammu 02.07.2026 Shammi SHAMMI KUMAR 2026.07.02 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document