1 S. No. 99 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 6957/2025 In CR No. 66/2025 CM No. 6958/2025 Reserved on: 29.10.2025 Pronounced on: 16.12.2025 Uploaded on: 16.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full Judgement is pronounced: Full Mohammad Akram Dar …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, Advocate Vs. Sheikh Amir Showkat and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT CM No. 6957/2025: 1. Prayer for exemption to place on record certified copy of order dated 16.09.2025, whereby the Trial Court directed the SHO concerned to implement the interim order dated 17.03.2025, is granted. 2. CM No. 6957/2025 is disposed of. CR No. 66/2025 & CM No. 6958/2025: 3. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Court of the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar (for short "the Trial Court") whereby the Station House Officer, Police Station, Shergari, was directed to implement the order dated 17.03.2025 and report compliance. 4. The Trial Court, vide order dated 17.03.2025, restrained the defendants/petitioner herein from interfering with the plaintiff’s/respondent herein peaceful possession of the suit property. Thereafter, upon an application filed by the defendants, the Trial 2 Court, vide order dated 16.04.2025, clarified that the said interim order would apply strictly to the suit property only. 5. Upon hearing both sides and appreciating the record on file, the Trial Court, vide order dated 02.09.2025, vacated the interim order dated 17.03.2025, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the vacation of the interim order vide order dated 02.09.2025, the Trial Court directed the SHO, Police Station, Shergari, to implement the earlier interim direction dated 17.03.2025. It is submitted that this direction is illegal, inasmuch as the order sought to be implemented had already been vacated. It is contended that the Trial Court erred in relying on the contention of the respondents that the appellate court had kept the order dated 02.09.2025 in abeyance. 7. The sole ground urged in challenge to the impugned order is that the order dated 17.03.2025, which the SHO was directed to implement, stood vacated by the Trial Court vide order dated 02.09.2025. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 9. The Trial Court, vide order dated 17.03.2025, had restrained the defendants from causing interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the said interim order was later vacated vide order dated 02.09.2025. 10. The order vacating the interim direction was challenged in appeal before the Court of the 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar (for short "the Appellate Court"), and the appellate court, vide order dated 06.09.2025, kept the order dated 02.09.2025 in abeyance. 11. Once the order vacating the interim direction is kept in abeyance, the effect is that the original interim order dated 17.03.2025 stands revived and continues to operate until the appeal is finally decided or the order of stay is modified or vacated. 12. The contention of the petitioner that the interim order had already been vacated and therefore could not be implemented, is untenable. In view of the appellate court having kept the order dated 02.09.2025 in abeyance, the interim order dated 17.03.2025 regained its force. 3 13. From a conjoint reading of the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is evident that the Trial Court rightly directed the SHO P/S Sherigari to implement the revived interim order. No illegality or perversity is found in the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 16.12.2025 Manzoor Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 16.12.2025 16.41