S. No.55 Suppl.1 List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 587/2025 CMNo.8830/2025 Date of pronouncement: 27.12.2025 Uploaded on: 29.12.2025 FAYAZ AHMAD HAJAM AND ORS. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Aaqib Ahad Koka and Mr. Tufail Ahmad, Advocates V/s KHALID IQBAL KHAN AND ORS. … ..Respondent(s) Through : None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Through the medium of present petition the petitioners have challenged order dated 12.07.2025, passed by learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Budgam (hereinafter ‘the trial Court’), whereby application of the petitioners seeking implementation of two orders dated 14.06.2025 passed by the said Court has been dismissed. 2. Heard and considered. 3. It appears that the petitioners have filed two suits before the trial Court in which on 14.06.2025, two separate orders came to be passed by the said Court. Vide the said orders, on the basis of CM(M) No.587 of 2025 Page 2 of 3 consensus of the parties, application for grant of interim injunction came to be disposed of by directing that the suit land shall not be disposed of by alienation or by creating third party interest during the pendency of the suit. In one order it was further observed by the learned trial Court that the party in possession shall be at liberty to utilize the suit land for agricultural purposes, while as in other order no such observation was made by the learned trial Court. 4. The petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application before the learned trial Court seeking implementation of interim orders dated 14.06.2025. In the said application, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs/ petitioners that they are in possession of the suit property, but the respondents are violating orders dated 14.06.2025 by trying to dispossess them from the suit property. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court by virtue of the impugned order. 5. It has been contended by the petitioners that they are in possession of the suit property and, therefore, any attempt on the part of the respondents to interfere in their possession amounts to violation of orders dated 14.06.2025. 6. I am afraid the contention raised by the petitioners is without any merit for the reason that vide orders dated 14.06.2025, passed by learned trial Court in the two suits, a restraint has been put on disposal of the suit property by alienation or by creating third party CM(M) No.587 of 2025 Page 3 of 3 interest during pendency of the suit. There is no direction passed by the trial Court vide its orders dated 14.06.2025 restricting the adverse party from interfering in possession of the suit land. The learned trial Court has only given liberty to the party in possession to utilize the suit land for agricultural purposes without specifying as to which of the party is in possession of the suit land. In these circumstances, even if it is assumed that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the suit property, the said action of the respondents does not violate orders dated 14.06.2025. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners. 7. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 27.12.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 29.12.2025 18:05