VIDHYA SAGER SHARMA AND ORS. v. BASHIR AHMED LONE ASSISTANT COMM.REVENUE POONCH
CPOWP/89/2019 · 2026-07-01
Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Contempt Petitionbody2019
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 619 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 619 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CPOWP No. 89/2019 in OWP No. 1269/2016
Vidhya Sager Sharma and others …..Petitioner(s)
Through: None
Vs
Bashir Ahmed Lone Assistant Commissioner Revenue Poonch .…. Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER (01.07.2026)
01. The record reveals that none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners on 29.04.2019, 07.08.2019, 05.11.2019 and thereafter in the light of the note of the Registry dated 24.06.2026, Ms. Shreya Nagpal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of petitioners on 07.03.2022. On which date, the
learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to take steps for the service of the respondent, which steps have not been taken by the petitioners as on today.
02. Today also, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Even otherwise also, the petitioners through the medium of the instant contempt petition are seeking implementation of the order/judgment passed by this Court dated 24.12.2018 in OWP No. 1269/2016, by virtue of which, the respondents were directed to release the balance amount of Rs.8,47,000/- in favour of the petitioners out of the total amount of Rs.30.75 lacs, if the same is not already paid. The non-appearance of the petitioners from the S. No. 22
2 CPOWP No. 89/2019
day of filing of the contempt petition in April 2019 leads to irresistible conclusion that perhaps the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the instant contempt petition for the reason that the order/judgment passed by this Court must have been complied with and this is the precise reason that today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
03. In the aforesaid backdrop, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep this instant contempt petition alive. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed.
04. Rule, if any, shall stand discharged.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE JAMMU
01.07.2026
Vijay
Vijay Kumar 2026.07.01 17.16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document