Sr. No. 23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM 5047/2025 in LPA 180/2025 Cav 1937/2025 UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG Vs. ABDUL AHAD SOFI ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 14-08-2025 1. This is an intra-court appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent against an order and judgment dated July 9, 2018. For, concededly, the appeal is barred by 2525 days, the same is accompanied by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Ex-facie, the contents set out in the application do not constitute a sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the accompanying appeal. 3. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent submits that post order dated July 9, 2018, the respondent had initiated the contempt proceedings owing to willful/deliberate non-compliance of the judgment dated July 9,2018. And numerous orders have been passed in those proceedings from time to time. So much so, the appellants had even moved an application seeking extension of time to implement the impugned order and judgment which was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/-: “Respondents, in the interest of justice, were given two weeks’ time to file fresh compliance report, indicating therein that the Judgement of this Court is implemented in letter and spirit and it was made clear that in case they fail, appropriate orders would follow. Respondents have failed, but Mr. Malik, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the respondents submits that one more opportunity of two weeks may be given to show that the Judgment has been implemented in letter and spirit. Subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to be deposited in the Litigants Welfare Fund, two weeks’ time is granted. List on 11.08.2025.” 4. Not just that, the pendency of the contempt petition as also the orders that have been passed from time to time in the said proceedings have been suppressed in the appeal. 5. Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present appeal. 6. Dismissed as withdrawn. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 14-08-2025 Shameem H.