S. No. 01 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CFA 82/2012 GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN PARRA AND ANOTHER …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: None Vs. MST. FAZI ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL-JUDGE ORDER 08.05.2025 1. There is no representation on behalf of the appellants. On 13.02.2024, a Bench of this Court had made following observations: “The appellants in the present case have consumed more than 12 years in running and literally making the decree holder feel like a beggar in the matter of decretal claim of Rs, 2,50,000/-. This Court cannot relax the conditions of deposit of the decretal amount as mandated by Order 41 Rule 1(3) of Code of Civil Procedure 1977, and, therefore, this Court is well within its right to first seek deposit of the entire decretal amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by the appellants with this Court in case the appellants are interested to have continuing stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, the appellants are directed to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the Registrar Judicial of this Court within a period of one month from today, failing which the interim direction operating in the matter with respect to operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall suffer recall. The learned counsel for the respondents/decree holder has made a very timely reminder to this Court with respect to the mandate of the law as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “M/S Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Jyoti Ltd. 2009(2) SCC 426”. This order is being passed by rejecting the adjournment motion made on behalf of the appellants.” 2. As is evident from afore-quoted order, it has been observed that appellants have stalled execution of a decree for long 12 years that too without depositing the decretal amount and, as such, appellants were directed to deposit decretal amount with the Registrar Judicial of this Court within one month from 13.02.2024, failing which interim order shall suffer recall. 3. Thereafter, on 19.03.2024, the appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution. Then, application for its restoration was filed along with condonation of delay application, which was disposed of on 29.07.2024. It was by virtue of order dated 14.03.2025 that the appeal was re-admitted. 4. Interim orders reveal that appellants have remained absent on most of the dates and that is the reason, this appeal is still pending and could not be decided for last 13 years. 5. As none has appeared for appellants and having regard to their conduct as well as the fact that this appeal is pending since 2012, same is dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 08.05.2025 “Imtiyaz” Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 14.05.2025 09:41