_____________________________________________________________________ CM(M) No.264/2025 Page 1 of 5 S. No.1 Regular List , IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.264/2025 ,,, GUL MOHD CHOPAN ... Petitioner(s) Through: -Mr.Mir Umar, Advocate Vs. AB GANI CHOPAN AND ORs …Respondent(s) Through:-None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 22.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 09.07.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Kulgam, whereby appeal against order dated 12.06.2025 passed by learned Sub Judge Kulgam has been dismissed. 2. It appears that the petitioner has filed a suit before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Kulgam (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents/defendants. According to case of the petitioner/plaintiff, he alongwith respondent/defendant No.5 is recorded owner in possession of land measuring 19 marlas (7 marlas falling under survey No.1082/376, 7 marlas falling under survey No. 1083/376 and 5 marlas falling under survey No.1353/1115/376) situated at Village Avil Tehsil D.H.Pora, which they have inherited from their predecessor-in-interest in equal shares. It has been pleaded that the petitioner/plaintiff has _____________________________________________________________________ CM(M) No.264/2025 Page 2 of 5 constructed a residential house and a cowshed on a portion of suit land and remaining portion of the land is being used by him as a compound. According to the plaintiff, respondents 1 to 4/contesting defendants, who are having no right or title over the suit land, are causing interference in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land and they are hell bent upon to make construction by way of encroaching the pathway which is eight feet wide and also some portion of the suit land. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction against the contesting defendants/respondents. 3. The contesting defendants/respondents filed their written statement in which they submitted that they are raising construction in their own land which is comprised in survey No.1251/1115/376 at village Avil D.H.Pora and the construction is being raised on the land measuring 9 marlas which is in their possession. It has been submitted that the land measuring 9 marlas on which the defendants/respondents are raising construction, is enclosed by the tin sheeted wall and that they left a patch of land for common foot path outside this wall. According to the defendants they have left sufficient gap outside the tin sheeted wall and this path leads to the houses of the plaintiff and other villagers. 4. Learned trial Court, after analyzing the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the parties, disposed of the application of the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, by virtue of order dated 12.06.2025. The learned trial Court declined to pass an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff by holding that he _____________________________________________________________________ CM(M) No.264/2025 Page 3 of 5 has failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour. It has been observed by the learned trial Court that as per revenue record the parties are in possession of their respective shares, as such, the defendants cannot be stopped from raising construction on portion of the land which is in their exclusive possession. 5. The petitioner/plaintiff challenged the aforesaid order by way of appeal before learned Principal District Judge, Kulgam, who vide impugned order dated 09.07.2025 refused to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the impugned order passed by learned trial Court as upheld by the Appellate Court on the grounds that the same have been passed without appreciating the material on record. It has been contended that the defendants are raising construction on the suit land which is in ownership and possession of the plaintiff, as such, it was duty of the Courts below to get the land of the plaintiff demarcated by the revenue authorities before deciding the interim application. According to the plaintiff the contesting defendants are raising construction on the land under survey No.1250/1115/376 which is in the name of father of the plaintiff, as such, the finding of the learned trial Court that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff is not in accordance with law. It has been submitted that the Courts below by vacating interim order passed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff have failed to protect the subject matter of the lis. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case. _____________________________________________________________________ CM(M) No.264/2025 Page 4 of 5 8. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below reveal that the plaintiff as well as the contesting defendants are in possession of different patches of land. It is the case of the plaintiff that the contesting defendants are raising construction on the land which is under his possession, which is being disputed by the contesting defendants, according to whom they are raising construction on the land which is in their possession and it is located in a different khasra number. It appears that during the pendency of the suit a local Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court in terms of order dated 21.11.2024. The local commissioner visited the spot and submitted its report wherein he has specifically reported that the contesting defendants are not raising any construction over the pathway leading to the suit land and they have not obstructed the same by any means. Thus, there was no material before the learned trial Court to come to a finding that the contesting defendants were raising construction on spot on the existing pathway which is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The said observation of the learned trial Court has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order. 9. This Court while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the Courts below, particularly when the petitioner has not placed on record any material to contradict the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below. _____________________________________________________________________ CM(M) No.264/2025 Page 5 of 5 10. Apart from the above, the report of the Commissioner, according to which the contesting defendants are not raising any construction on suit land or on the pathway leading to the suit land which does not belong to them, has not been contested by the petitioner/plaintiff by filing objections thereto. In the face of this situation, there was no option for the learned trial Court but to dismiss the application of the plaintiff for grant of interim injunction. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court as upheld by the Appellate Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.07.2025 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 23.07.2025 16:53