24 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CSA 19/2013 IA(1/2016[01/2016]) IA(2/2013[542/2013]). GHULAM MOHAMMAD WANI. …Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate VERSUS ABDUL SAMAD WANI. Through: Mr. M.A. Makhdoomi, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER 14.08.2025 01. In the Civil Second Appeal of year 2013 institution, this Court came to be apprised about an effort being made from both sides to the lis about process of an amicable settlement having been resorted to as is gatherable from an Order dated 28.02.2023. 02. This exercise relatable to amicable settlement thereafter has been repeatedly referred to in all later orders passed in the case to the extent that on the last date of hearing before the Bench on 13th of February, 2025, this Court came to be apprised by the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. M. A. Makdoomi that subject matter of the present appeal has been settled outside the Court. 03. Proxy Counsel appearing for the counsel for the appellant was requested to have instructions in the matter. 04. Prior to last date of hearing that is 13th of February, 2025 on 7th November, 2024, this Court came to be apprised by none else than the counsel for the appellant that compromise would come to be placed on record and even the statements of the parties would be volunteered to be recorded. 05. This Court does not understand that why Advocates representing parties avoid apprising the Court in due time about the outcome of the amicable settlement exercise so as to save the precious time of the Court which otherwise gets exhausted and wasted in only taking up the matter, going through it and then at last leaving the Court handicapped to adjourn the matter for the reason of being apprised of the outcome of the settlement. 06. This Court is not under any obligation to stretch itself in the matter of letting two years in getting apprised about the outcome of the settlement. 07. In this case, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that perhaps the matter has been resolved and that is the reason that neither the appellant nor the counsel of the appellant are showing the curtsy of appearing in the case at least for the sake of making mention even out of turn that the matter stands resolved and the case be consigned to record. 08. This Court is staying away from making any such observation that the case is being consigned to record on account of having been settled out of Court but is dismissing this case for non-prosecution with liberty reserved in favour of the appellant to seek restoration of the matter in case the appellant would have the reason to plead that the matter has not been amicably settled, provided restoration application is made within the period of limitation prescribed. (Rahul Bharti) Judge SRINAGAR 14.08.2025 Bisma