NISAR AHMAD ITOO MR. MUBASHIR MALIK, ADNAN FAYAZ vs ABDUL RASHID BHAT — CM(M)/145/2026

Case under Article 227-Section 104 Section 227. Disposed: Contested--Dismised on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JKHC010019782026

Filing Number

CM(M)/1513/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

CM(M)/145/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Bench Type

SINGLE BENCH

Category

SB MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASES ( 125 )

Sub-Category

QUASHMENT OF ORDER ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL CASES (C)

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismised

Last updated 08-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Article 227-Section 104 Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NISAR AHMAD ITOO MR. MUBASHIR MALIK, ADNAN FAYAZ

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ABDUL RASHID BHAT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq NargalView PDF

    Case Summary: CM(M) 145/2026 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petitioner's plea to summon a witness after evidence closure in a ₹4,50,000 recovery suit. The court held that the trial court correctly rejected the Section 151 CPC application, as the petitioner had adequate prior opportunities to produce the witness, evidence had already closed, and permitting late witness summoning would reopen proceedings and prejudice the opposing party. The court emphasized that procedural discipline under CPC cannot be circumvented by invoking inherent powers at belated stages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq NargalView PDF

  4. 05-May-2026

    For Admission Fresh

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

  5. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CM(M)/145/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CM(M) 145/2026 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petitioner's plea to summon a witness after evidence closure in a ₹4,50,000 recovery suit. The court held that the trial court correctly rejected the Section 151 CPC application, as the petitioner had adequate prior opportunities to produce the witness, evidence had already closed, and permitting late witness summoning would reopen proceedings and prejudice the opposing party. The court emphasized that procedural discipline under CPC cannot be circumvented by invoking inherent powers at belated stages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case