The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has expressed displeasure over the Union Territory's civil and police administration for naming a dead person as a respondent in a petition. The case stems from a 2008 compensation decree, where the original litigant Jia Lal Raina had already passed away. Justice Rahul Bharti criticized the handling sharply.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has voiced strong displeasure over how the Union Territory's civil and police administration managed a legal matter, upon discovering that a deceased individual was listed as a party in a petition. This came to light during a hearing on December 21, where Justice Rahul Bharti reviewed a petition filed by the chief secretary, Director General of Police, and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Range, Srinagar.
The root of the issue traces back to a 2008 civil suit filed by Jia Lal Raina against the then State of J&K and others, seeking compensation. On November 29, 2008, the court of the Additional District Judge, Jammu, issued a decree in Raina's favor. Subsequently, the chief secretary, DGP, and DIG—three of the five judgment debtors—appealed to the High Court, which in 2011 ordered them to deposit Rs 7 lakh as compensation. The appeal was dismissed in September 2021 for non-prosecution.
Earlier this year, these judgment debtors filed a restoration application four years after the dismissal, prompted by a local court's order to execute the 2008 decree. The Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu, directed the original respondents to deposit the amount. However, by this time, Raina had died on November 29, 2017, and his legal heirs were handling related proceedings.
Justice Bharti remarked, “Such is the state of desperation of the petitioners that the respondent named in the present petition is a dead person.” He further noted that the court “is not cherishing the manner in which the Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is taking liberty of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court by acting upon the whims and fancies of its Law Department officials.” The court chose to reserve its explicit resentment in the order but instructed the additional district judge to stay the December order for two months, allowing the debtors time to seek interim relief from the High Court.
This incident highlights lapses in the administration's oversight of legal affairs at the highest levels.
