05 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 513/2025 CM(7689/2025) Caveat 2485/2025 Date of Pronouncement:24.11.2025 Uploaded on: 25 .11.2025 MANZOOR AHMAD BHAT ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Parvaiz Lone, Adv. V/s AEON INFRATEL PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Aatir Kawoosa, Adv. with Mr. Areeb Kawoosa, Adv. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER (ORAL) 24.11.2025 1. The petitioner, has challenged order dated 20.09.2025, passed by the learned 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge/ Forest Magistrate Srinagar (hereafter referred to as the trial court) whereby the objection of the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 430 of the Companies Act, has been overruled. 2. Issue notice to the respondents. P a g e | 2 CM(M) 513/2025 CM(7689/2025) Caveat 2485/2025 3. Mr. Aatir Kawoosa, Advocate, who is on caveat, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4. Caveat is accordingly discharged. 4. Heard and considered. 5. It appears that respondent No. 1 to 4 have filed a suit before the trial court seeking the following reliefs: A) A DECREE FOR DECLARATION in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendants declaring the impugned Memorandum of Transfer of Shares wherein it ahs been shown that the 333 Equity Shares held by the plaintiff No. 21 in the plaintiff No. 1 Company have been allegedly transferred in the name of defendant (Annexure-I herein)_ as null and void and of no legal consequences. B) A DECREE OF DECLARATION in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendant declaring the plaintiff No. 2 to be the actual holder of 333 Equity Shares in the plaintiff company, as per the Share Certificate annexed with the Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of the Company. C) A DECREE FOR PERMANENT PROHIBILITY INJUNCTION in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant restraining the defendant to claim any shareholding in the plaintiff company under the name and style Aeon Infratel Private Limited on the basis of impugned Memorandum of Transfers of Shares. P a g e | 3 CM(M) 513/2025 CM(7689/2025) Caveat 2485/2025 6. It appears that after filing of the suit, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement in which one of the pleas raised by him is that the suit is hit by Section 432, 441 and 232 of the Companies Act and that the civil court lacks jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the same. 7. The learned trial court has, by virtue of the impugned order, proceeded to decide the aforesaid objection of the petitioner/defendant No. 1 without framing any issue on this aspect of the matter and in fact, no issues have been framed by the learned trial court as yet. The procedure adopted by the learned trial court in overruling the objections of the petitioner/defendant No. 1, is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for procedure of settlement of the issues. As per Rule (1) of the Order XIV issues are of two kinds (i) issues of fact and (ii) issues of law. It further provides that at the first hearing of the suit, the court, after reading the plaint and the written statements and after examination of the preliminary statement of the parties recorded under Order X of P a g e | 4 CM(M) 513/2025 CM(7689/2025) Caveat 2485/2025 Code of Civil Procedure, has to crystallize all the material propositions of fact or law regarding which the parties are at variance. Thereafter the court has to proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. Rule (2) of Order XIV provides that the court has to pronounce the judgment on all issues unless the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issues. 9. Excepting the provisions contained under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, there is no other provision in Code of Civil Procedure which vests power with the civil court to decide an issue of fact or law prior to settlement of issues. It is not a case where the petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure before the learned trial court but it is a case where petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed his written statement raising a plea with regard to maintainability of the suit on the ground that the same is not cognizable by a civil court. Therefore, before proceeding to decide the said objection raised by the petitioner/defendant No. 1, the trial court was bound to frame a preliminary issue in this regard, whereafter the parties were required to be heard in support of their respective P a g e | 5 CM(M) 513/2025 CM(7689/2025) Caveat 2485/2025 contentions. It is only thereafter that the learned trial court, could have decided the issue with regard to maintainability of the suit which unfortunately the trial court has failed to do, thereby, committing breach of procedure prescribed under law. For these reasons the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in law and is required to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. A direction is issued to the learned trial court to frame an issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit prior to deciding the same in accordance with law. Anything said by the learned trial court in the impugned order shall not have any bearing or influence on any fresh decision that may be taken by the learned trial court. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 24.11.2025 Aasif