Serial No. 24 Reg. Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 10/2024 ABDUL RASHID MALIK … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. N.A Tabassum, Advocate Vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF MALIK AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 12.08.2025 1. The instant petition is second attempt made by the petitioner herein for permitting him to produce witnesses in support of his case being a civil suit filed and pending before the court of learned Sub Judge, Shopian ( for short the “trial court”). 2. Record would reveal that on 03.11.2021 the trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner herein in the suit supra while observing that the plaintiff/petitioner had been directed to produce list of witnesses on 22.06.2016, which he did not produce even after the expiry of more than five years, so much so, also did not produce any witness. 3. Record would also reveal that the said order dated 03.11.2021 was followed by another order dated 2nd November 2022, passed by the trail court upon an application filed by plaintiff/petitioner herein seeking permission therein to deposit witness expenses, in terms of which order the trial court dismissed the said application while observing that despite the fact that the plaintiff/petitioner submitted a list of witnesses much after the prescribed period of 15 days on 04.03.2017, yet did not deposit the witness expenses. 4. Record also tends to show that feeling aggrieved of both the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff/petitioner preferred CM(M) No. 9/2023 before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 20.10.2023, while observing that in the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the case only one opportunity is given to the plaintiff/petitioner to produce evidence before the trial court subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the counsel for the otherside, while making it clear that the plaintiff/petitioner shall produce witnesses at his own risk, before the trial court and in the event he fails to do so, right as given shall be closed and trial court shall be free to proceed ahead in the matter. 5. It also emerges from the record available in the present petition that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 20.10.2023, passed by this Court in CM(M) No. 9/2023 supra, plaintiff/petitioner herein produced four witnesses before the trial court after an opportunity came to be granted by the trial court to plaintiff/petitioner on 30.11.2023 and consequently closed the right of the plaintiff/petitioner herein to produce any other witness. 6. Record also shows that the plaintiff/petitioner had meantime also filed an application for summoning of two official witnesses as his witnesses which the trial court declined in terms of the impugned order dated 16.12.2023. 7. Having regard to the order dated 20.10.2023 supra passed by this Court coupled with fact that the said order have had been passed taking into consideration the orders in challenge therein passed by the trial court on 3.11.2021 and 2.11.2022, wherein the permission have had been sought by the plaintiff/petitioner from the trial court for depositing the witness expenses for summoning of official witnesses, this Court in the interest of justice permitted the plaintiff only one opportunity to produce his evidence at his own risk without intervention of the court. However, the plaintiff/petitioner now in the instant petition in essence seeks review of the said order dated 20.10.2023, while throwing challenge to order dated 16.12.2023, passed by the trial court, on the premise that he the plaintiff/petitioner herein filed another application after the passing of the order by this Court on 20.10.2023 for summoning of the official witnesses, which application stands rejected in terms of order under challenge. 8. In view of aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the instant petition is found to be grossly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 12.08.2025 “S.Nuzhat”