Serial No. 16 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CR 10/2025 CM(1085/2025) Riyaz Ahmad Channa. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mohammad Altaf Khan, Adv. VERSUS Ravinder Koul and Ors. Through: Mr. J H Reshi, Adv. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 29.10.2025 1. Through the medium of present revision petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 09-12-2024 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar whereby the interim order dated 26-06-2024 passed by the said court in a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents has been vacated. 2. It appears that the petitioner has filed a civil suit against the respondents/defendants for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell in respect of the property situated at Naqashpora, Barbarshah, Srinagar. When the suit was presented before the learned Trial Court, an ex-parte interim order dated 26-06-2024 came to be passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby respondents/defendants were directed not to create any third party interest in respect of the suit property. It seems that the plaintiff/petitioner did not comply with the provisions contained in Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, as a result of which learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 09-12-2024 proceeded to cancel the ex-parte interim order and issued fresh notice to the respondents/defendants. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition. Heard and considered. 3. Mr. J. H. Reshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the impugned order is appealable in nature in terms of Order 43 Rule 1(r), as such, a revision petition is not maintainable. 4. There appears to be merit in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is appealable in nature. Section 115 of the CPC which vests power of revision with the High Court, clearly provides that the High Court would not vary or reverse any order against which appeal lies either to the High Court or to any other court subordinate thereto. Thus, the instant revision petition is not maintainable. 5. Apart from the above, admittedly the petitioner/plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC which postulates that whenever an ex-parte interim injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff, he has to deliver to the opposite party or to send to him by registered post, a copy of the application together with a copy of the affidavit, a copy of the plaint and the copies of documents on which the plaintiff relies. To this effect plaintiff has to file an affidavit before the Court. 6. It is not even the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he had sent or delivered the aforesaid documents to the defendants at his own level and filed an affidavit before the court to the said effect. His only contention is that he had filed registered covers with the court for effecting service upon the defendants. Thus, the requirements of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC have admittedly not been complied with the petitioner. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly exercised his discretion to vacate the interim injunction and issued the fresh notice to the respondents. The discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court does not deserve to be interfered with particularly when no error of law or error of fact has been committed by the said court. 7. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Interim direction shall stand vacated. 8. The Trial Court shall proceed to decide the interim application filed by the plaintiff afresh and pass an order thereon in accordance with law within the time framed stipulated under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 29.10.2025 Sarvar