- (1.)BEFORE dealing with the case on its merits, it may be appropriate to put on record that despite service of notice through registered post respondents have not appeared to contest this case. This court had send for the State counsel/Government Advocate so as to seek their assistance in this case, but despite best efforts put forth by the Court none of the State counsel chose to appear in this case. The Court is left with no option but to decide the case on its merits on the basis of record available and submissions made at Bar by learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.)THE facts of the case briefly summarized as under:
That the petitioner -plaintiff had instituted a civil original suit on 03.09.2002 which was tried and finally decided by First Additional District Judge Srinagar. The plaintiff -petitioner had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.2.75/ - lacs plus interest. The judgment dated 9th Oct. 2004 handed down by the First Additional District Judge, Srinagar, xeroz copy whereof is placed on record of this revision petition, reveals that plaintiffs son Mohammad Ayoob Khan was running a shop at Karihama Kupwara and was allegedly picked up by personnel 56th, 76 Btns of Border Security Forces on 14th Oct. 1990. The case of the petitioner -plaintiff was that she approached all the concerned authorities for seeking release of her apprehended son. She further pleaded that all these efforts did not bear any fruit and she could not even see her son thereafter. She had approached different authorities including J&K State Human Rights Commission and even an enquiry was conducted in the matter by Pr. District Judge Kupwara in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court. The trial court vide judgment dated 9th Oct. 2004 after dealing with the case in detail held the petitioner entitled to payment of compensation. The trial court record reveals that suit was decided on 9th Oct. 2004 by directing payment of compensation at Rs. Two lacs. The trial court further directed for payment of interest at the rate of 6% p.a. This judgment was passed in ex -parte and decree sheet was accordingly drawn.

(3.)PETITIONER filed execution petition, seeking execution of the said decree before the trial court. Respondents appeared before the trial court in execution proceedings and filed their objections. It appears that objections so filed were rejected by the executing court on 20.05.06, against which revision petition No. 85/06 was filed before this Court.
This court after hearing the parties handed down judgment dated 26.02.2007 and dismissed the revision filed by respondents. The respondents had taken a plea that as the petitioner has been paid Rs.one lac as ex -gratia relief and so only Rs. One lac more is required to be paid and not Rs. Two lacs, as in their wisdom that would satisfy the decree.