Serial No. 61 Supplementary-1 Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR FAO No. 28/2026 CM No. 5298/2026 Caveat No. 1962/2026 Rashida Jamal … Appellant(s) Through: - Mr Mohammad Ibrahim Mehraj, Advocate. V/s Mohammad Younis Bhat & Ors. … Respondent(s) Through: - Mr Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE. (ORDER) 14.08.2026 Caveat No. 1962/2026: 01. With the appearance of Mr Areeb Javed Kawoosa, learned Advocate, Caveat No. 1962/2026 shall stand discharged, accordingly. FAO No. 28/2026; CM No. 5298/2026: 02. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 03. The Appellant has called in question the Order dated 16th of April, 2026 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ganderbal [Trial Court] in the Suit titled ‘Mohammad Younis Bhat & Anr. v. Rashida Jamal & Ors.’, whereby the Defendants have been granted leave to defend the Suit subject to condition of deposit of 25% of the cheque amount as security. The Appellant is also feeling indignant of Order dated 31st of July, 2026 passed by the Trial Court, whereby in an application filed by the Defendants, the Order dated 16th of April, 2026 came to be modified to the extent of directing the Defendants to deposit an amount of ₹ 5.00 lacs as security instead of 25% of the cheque amount. 04. It appears that the Defendants were initially granted leave to defend by the Trial Court in terms of Order dated 16th of April, 2026, subject to deposit of 25% of the cheque amount, whereafter, in the application moved by the Defendants themselves, the said 25% was slashed down to only ₹ 5.00 lacs, but despite that, the Defendants are not ready to even deposit the said ₹ 5.00 lacs and have, instead, filed the present appeal before this Court. 05. From the perusal of the averments contained in the appeal and the pleadings available on record, it is seen that the Suit involves recovery of a sum of ₹1,15,65,000/-. Therefore, keeping in view the amount subject matter of recovery, the impugned Orders do not call for any interference as this is a minimum amount which appears to have been directed to be deposited by the Trial Court, while granting leave to defend to the Defendants. 06. Said apart, perusal of the memo of appeal reveals that no good ground is made out to show any indulgence at this stage. Therefore, the appeal, being bereft of merit, shall stand dismissed, accordingly, along with the connected CM. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) JUDGE SRINAGAR August 14th, 2026 “TAHIR” Tahir Manzoor Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document