Serial No. 6 Regular cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 2109/2024 in LPA No. 85/2024 UT of J&K and Ors. ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate V/s Shah Cinema Qamarwari Srinagar ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. M. I. Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Owais Shafi, Advocate Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE (ORDER) 29.04.2025 The Judgment and order dated 18.09.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge (Writ Court) in OWP No. 421/2002 & OWP No. 1860/2014, is sought to be challenged by way of an appeal filed under Clause 12 of Letters Patent Appeal, after a delay of 1977 days, therefore, the instant application, seeking condonation of delay. The huge delay of 1977 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned on the ground that the appellants were required to gather more records from different quarters with a view to comply the Judgment after it was so passed. It is submitted that even the occupancy certificate for some period was not available. On 13.03.2019, Police Headquarter J&K, constituted a committee for determining the exact area of occupation by the Security Forces and the matter remained under examination before the said committee for a pretty long time. What is sought to be projected in the application could have been relevant in contesting the writ petition, which came to be disposed of by a Judgment and order dated 18.09.2018 supra. There is, however, no explanation put forth to demonstrate as to how it took them 1977 days to take a decision to file the appeal. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document From perusal of the application as also the objections filed thereto by the respondents, it clearly comes out that the appellants, in whose presence the Judgment dated 18.09.2018 was passed, were well aware and were contesting the contempt petition filed by the respondents. It was only when Robkar was framed by the contempt Court and the appellants were asked to deposit the rentals in terms of the said Judgment, a belated decision was taken to challenge the Judgment dated 18.09.2018, so as to avoid the compliance of the concluded Judgment. It has been brought to our notice that during the pendency of the contempt petition, appellants have even deposited the principle amount and the appeal which is sought to be filed against the Judgment and order dated 18.09.2018 is more or less restricted to challenge the rate of interest. We have also gone through the Judgment sought to be challenged in the appeal and we are of the view that for withholding the rentals of the respondents, the appellants were rightly held liable to compensate the respondents by way of reasonable interest. The award of 6% interest per annum by the writ Court can, otherwise, be not said to be either exorbitant or confiscatory in nature. The award of interest is compensatory and serves the interest of justice. For all these reasons, we do not find any good cause shown for condoning the huge delay of 1977 days. The application is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal, LPA No. 85/2024 shall also stand dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 29.04.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document