A writ petition was dismissed by the High Court due to repeated non-appearance of the petitioner, with no adjudication on merits. The judgment reaffirms that such dismissals do not have precedential value on substantive legal questions, and cannot be cited as binding authority for future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/987/2024 of MUZAFFAR AHMAD SHEIKH Vs JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED AND ORS. |
| CNR | JKHC010020872024 |
| Date of Registration | 09-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar |
| Precedent Value | No binding precedent value; procedural dismissal (not on merits) |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner failed to appear before the court on 01.09.2025 and again on 27.10.2025. Noting the lack of representation and apparent disinterest in pursuing the petition, the court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | N/A – Not a binding authority on points of law; only records procedural disposal. |
| Persuasive For | N/A – Not persuasive for legal issues; may illustrate practice for procedural dismissals. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment simply records a procedural dismissal for non-prosecution; no legal proposition or clarification on substantive law is made.
- Lawyers should note that such orders do not have precedential value and cannot be relied upon for arguments on legal principles or substantive rights.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the absence of the petitioner or their counsel on two consecutive hearing dates.
- Concluded that the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the writ petition.
- Dismissed the writ petition solely on this procedural ground, without considering or deciding any substantive issue or legal question.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Not recorded in the judgment; petitioner or counsel not present over two consecutive hearings.
Respondents
- Not recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition against Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited and others. On the previous hearing date (01.09.2025), there was no appearance for the petitioner, and again on the present date (27.10.2025), no one appeared. The court took note of the lack of representation and dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the judgment, as the matter was disposed on purely procedural grounds due to non-prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded—both judges concurred in the procedural dismissal.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural standards, directions, or innovations were set by this judgment. The court followed established practice for dealing with non-prosecuted petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Routine procedural dismissal for non-prosecution, consistent with established judicial practice.