Serial No. 104 Suppl. Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM (M) No. 324/2024 CM No. 5284/2024 Caveat No. 1856/2024. BASHIR AHMAD BHAT AND ANR. ( SR. CITIZEN) …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. R.A.Jan, Sr Advocate with Ms. Humaira Sajad, Advocate. VERSUS MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL BHAT AND ORS. Through: Mr. R.A. Bhat, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 14.05.2025 01. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 10th of July, 2022 passed by the learned Munsiff (Sub-Registrar), Srinagar whereby in an application filed by defendant No.2/ respondent No.2 herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) permission has been granted to the said defendant to carry out the construction on the Suit property falling under Survey Nos. 516 and 516/1 situated in Mouza Soiteng, Tehsil Pantha Chowk, District Srinagar subject to the filing of an undertaking that in case the said defendant fails to make out a case in his favour, he would adhere to the orders of the Court regarding the said construction. 02. Heard and considered. 03. It appears that the plaintiffs/ petitioners herein have filed a Suit against the defendants/ respondents herein before the trial Court seeking a decree of declaration, possession and injunction in respect of the land measuring 02 Kanals and 01 Marla covered under Survey Nos. 516 and 516/1 situated in Mouza Soiteng, Tehsil Pantha Chowk, District Srinagar. The Suit property is claimed to be the joint property of the parties. It seems that on 2nd of May, 2024, the learned trial Court, while disposing of an application of the plaintiffs/ petitioners herein seeking interim inunction in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the Suit property till the final disposal of the main Suit. After the passing of the aforesaid order, the defendant No.2/ respondent No.2 herein filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking permission to raise construction on a portion of the Suit land which came to be allowed by the trial Court in terms of the impugned order. 04. One of the grounds raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners for impugning the order dated 10th of July, 2024 passed by the trial Court is that the same is bereft of any reasons, inasmuch as the trial Court has not assigned any ground, much less a cogent one, for passing of the impugned order in favour of the defendant No.2/ respondent No.2 herein. It has been contended that in view of the fact that the same Court, while disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), had framed a prima facie opinion that the plaintiffs/ petitioners herein have a good case on its merits, it was not open to the learned trial Court to pass the impugned order. 05. If we go through the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it comes to fore that the same runs into 25 paragraphs, spreading over 08 pages. Out of 25 paragraphs, 23 paragraphs of the impugned order have been devoted by the trial Court for recording the respective contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties. After noticing these contentions, the learned trial Court, in paragraph No.24 of the impugned order, has simply stated that taking into consideration the averments made in the application and objections filed thereto as also arguments advanced, the application is allowed. It is not specified in the impugned order as to which circumstance or which material has persuaded the said Court in taking a view in favour of the applicant. This clearly reflects non- application of mind on the part of the learned trial Court. 06. It is settled position of law that reasons are heartbeat of a judicial order and, in absence of reasons, an order passed by a judicial authority becomes arbitrary in nature and cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order, as already stated, is bereft of any reasons, inasmuch as the learned trial Court has not spelt out the grounds on which the said Court has accepted the case of the applicant. On this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court in the present case becomes unsustainable in law. 07. In view of above, without commenting upon the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for decision of the application of defendant No.2/ respondent No.2 herein afresh. The learned trial Court shall, after hearing the parties, pass a reasoned order in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The application of defendant No.2/ respondent No.2 herein filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) shall be decided by the learned trial Court most expeditiously, preferably within a period of thirty days from the date a copy of this order is made available to it. 08. Disposed of, along with the connected CM(s). (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 14.05.2025 Showkat Khan