Serial No.42 SUPPL. CAUSE LIST I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 248/2025 In WP(C) 2275/2023 Muzaffar Ahmad Sheikh …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Asif Ahmad, Advocate vice Mr. Musavir Mir, Advocate Vs. Shaleen Kabra and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 12.08.2025 1. The petitioner had come forward with a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2275/2023 purportedly seeking a writ of mandamus for release of the admitted liability amount due in his favour for the contract work for construction of roads and shifting of pipes from PGSY Dansur to Shooligan. 2. The writ petition came to be disposed without adjudication on merits with a direction to the writ respondents to accord effective consideration to the claim of the petitioner for release of the MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 14.08.25 purported admitted liability amount for the value of the work done by the petitioner. 3. The direction unto the respondents for consideration was meant to bear compliance within a period of eight weeks from the date certified copy of the writ court order being made available to the respondents who are four in numbers. 4. Going by the timeline by reference to order dated 1st September, 2023, the eight weeks time period was to expire by the end of October, 2023 and thereafter the cause of action for the petitioner to come up with a grievance that the court order going uncomplied at the end of the respondents would have surely accrued to him, but it seems that the petitioner himself chose to be in the shoes of this Court and started granting self extensions of time in favour of the writ respondents and almost after a period of 1 year, 11 months and 12 days, it has taken the petitioner to come to realization that compliance of the writ Court order has not taken place. 5. The petitioner infact rendered himself disentitled to seek the indulgence of this Court on the MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 14.08.25 contempt jurisdiction side by having himself granted extensions of time in favour of the respondents that too by overreaching this Court. What was being granted by the petitioner was meant to be granted by this Court, in case if the contempt petition would have been preferred by the petitioner well within time. 6. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that within the period of limitation the contempt petition is being preferred. This Court is not applying the principle of limitation but that of delay and laches, as also of diluting the direction of this Court at his own discretion. 7. The contempt petition is dismissed. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 12.08.2025 “Mir Arif” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 14.08.25