The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court condoned a 409-day delay and restored a second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
The appellant had relied on his counsel to report developments and supported his restricted mobility with medical records. His participation in other litigation did not rebut that explanation: the High Court appearance predated dismissal, while other proceedings were local to Udhampur. Applying the preference for adjudication on merits, the Court accepted sufficient cause both for delayed restoration and the original non-appearance. Restoration was conditional on depositing Rs. 5,000 in the Litigants’ Welfare Fund within two weeks. For restoration practice, the decision supports a fact-specific explanation of counsel dependence and medical impediments, rather than treating another court appearance as conclusive proof of diligence or mobility.
Case — Rajinder Kumar v. Geeta Devi · CM Nos. 5/2025 and 6/2025 in CSA No. 11/2010 · 2026-10-12 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Appellant/applicant — Mr. Rajnish Raina, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Prabhat Sangotra, Advocate, and Mr. Rishu Rajeshwar, Advocate. Respondent — Mr. Virender Bhat, Advocate.