1 Sr. No. 1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (through virtual mode) CM No. 1026/2025 in RP No. 17/2025 …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Nazir Ahmad Bhat Through:- Mr. Raja Rameez, Advocate V/s Chairman/Managing Director J&K Bank and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Ms Taniya Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 07.03.2025 This is a petition seeking review of the order dated 30.10.2024, passed by this Court in CM No. 6719/2024 in (WP(C) No.654/2024. The review petition is delayed by 90 days and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay. Although, there is no sufficient ground demonstrated in the application for condonation of delay, yet, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay and consider the review petition on merits. Condonation application is, accordingly, disposed of. RP No. 17/2025 1 WP(C) 654/2024, filed by the petitioner herein, is pending adjudication in this Court. Despite the petitioner being aware that respondent No.10 had purchased the property in an auction conducted by the Bank, yet, for obvious reasons, he was not arrayed as a party 2 respondent. However, pursuant to an order passed in the writ petition, respondent No.10 was arrayed as a party respondent. 2 Having regard to the nature of controversy involved and to protect the interest of respondent No.10, this Court, vide order dated 11.10.2024, clarified the earlier order passed on 01.04.2024 by providing as under: “The aforementioned operative portion does not bar the concerned Tehsildar from mutating the property in the name of respondent No.10. The Tehsildar is, therefore, permitted to do so. However, respondent No.10 shall not create any third party interest in the property till this petition is disposed of. This order only clarifies the order dated 01.04.2024 and goes no further. 3 It was clarified by this Court that the order dated 01.04.2024 providing that any action taken by the respondents shall be subject to outcome of this petition would mean that there is no bar to the concerned Tehsildar from mutating the property in the name of respondent No.10. It was further provided that respondent No.10, in whose favour the mutation is attested by the Tehsildar concerned, shall not create any third-party interest in the property till the writ petition is disposed of. 4 Feeling aggrieved by the clarificatory order dated 11.10.2024, the petitioner filed CM No. 6719/2024, seeking recall/ revocation of the order dated 11.10.2024. The application was considered by this Court and vide order dated 30.10.2024, the same was dismissed being grossly misconceived. It was opined by the Court that once the property has been purchased by respondent No.10 in an auction conducted by the Bank, he cannot be deprived of attestation of 3 requisite mutation in accordance with law. The petitioner has now made another attempt, this time by filing a review petition seeking yet again the review of the order dated 30.10.2024 so that the earlier order dated 11.10.2024 is also recalled. 5 We have gone through the application in its entirety and do not find any ground for such review. Needless to say that it is not in dispute that respondent No.10 has purchased the subject property in an auction conducted by the Bank and, therefore, is entitled in law to have the property mutated in his favour. With a view to protect the interest of the petitioner, this Court has already provided that upon attestation of mutation in favour of respondent No.10, he shall not create any third-party interest till the petition is disposed of . This order was passed only as a clarification of the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Court in the writ petition providing that any action taken by the respondents shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition. As a matter of fact, the order dated 11.10.2024, reiterated by this Court in the order dated 30.10.2024, protects the interest of the petitioner The property may have gone in the hands of respondent No.10, but, the fact remains that he is not permitted to create any third party interest till the writ petition is disposed of. The final outcome of the writ petition would determine the fate of the property. 6 We find this attempt by the petitioner again to be a gross misuse of the process of law and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. This review petition is found to be without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court within four 4 weeks. In case the costs are not deposited within the specified period, the Registry shall list the matter for that purpose in the Court on 26.03.2025. (PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu: 07.03.2025 Sanjeev