HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2176/2025 Javaid Ahmed .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- None v/s UT of J & K & Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 11.08.2025 1. This is a petition by the petitioner Ex. Naik Javaid Ahmed, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to throw a challenge to an order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu (“the AFT”) in MA No. 32/2025, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of TA No. 04/2023 which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 17.09.2024. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in MA No. 32/2025 and order dated 17.09.2024 passed in TA No. 04/2023 are required to be set aside. 3. It is true that MA No. 32/2025 filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the main case, dismissed for non-prosecution, on 17.09.2024 was delayed by 120 days. The AFT after considering the application for delay and having found the cause for filing belated application sufficient, allowed the application and condoned Sr. No. 34 WP (C) No. 2176/2025 2 the delay. However, the MA No. 32/2025 was dismissed and order dated 17.09.2024 dismissing the main case in default was maintained. Otherwise also, it is a writ petition which was pending before this Court and, after the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu, was transferred to the AFT. After receipt of file by the AFT, the notice was issued to the petitioner as well as his counsel through registered post and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution only on the ground that the registered notice sent to the petitioner and his counsel had not been received back served or unserved. In such situation, where the case had proceeded on a presumptive service, a liberal approach was required to be adopted. 4. Moreover, once the Tribunal was of the opinion that the delay of 120 days was well explained by the petitioner, there could not have been any good reason to refuse to restore the main case dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.09.2024. 5. For all these reasons, we allow this petition and set aside the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in MA No. 32/2025 and order dated 17.09.2024 passed in TA No. 04/2023 and restore the main case to its original number. 6. Let the parties through their counsel be informed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.09.2025. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 11.08.2025 Manik