1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … FAO no.15/2021 c/w CCP(S) no.381/2021 Ghulam Qadir Parray …….Appellant(s) Through: Mr Syed Masood Ahmad, Advocate V/s Mohammad Younis Parray ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr Owais Shafi, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL JUDGE O R D E R 16.07.2025 1. Appellant prays for setting-aside of Order dated 12th April 2021, passed by court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag (Trial Court), by which application under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) filed by appellant - respondent herein has been allowed, making absolute interim order dated 28th October 2020. 2. Heard and considered. 3. Respondent has filed a civil suit before Trial Court. He states that he is in possession of 02 kanals’ land falling under Survey no.283 situate at Buchoo, Kokernag (suit property) upon which his father had constructed a cowshed some forty years back and that he recently laid raft on one side of the said chunk of land in order to fence it and that suit land is being used as courtyard by him. According to respondent, defendant – appellant herein is not in possession of suit property. Respondent also claims that appellant had been serving in Revenue Department as Girdawar and got entries recorded fraudulently and on the basis whereof tried to cause 2 interference in possession of respondent over suit property. He, therefore, has in his plaint sought permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain defendant/appellant permanently from entering into the suit property 4. With his plaint, respondent moved an application for interim relief. Trial Court granted ad interim relief subject to objections from other-side. Appellant appeared and filed his objections, besides written statement. He also moved an application for vacation of ad interim order. Trial Court by order impugned has made ad interim order absolute. 5. It is true that Trial Court has not disposed of appellant’s application for vacation of ad interim ex parte order, although it has made reference thereof in impugned order. This seems to have made appellant aggrieved to approach this Court, although there are several other grounds given by him in memo of appeal to challenge order impugned. 6. Having regard to case set up and grounds taken by appellant in instant appeal, there is no dispute that conclusion of impugned order does not show or reflect that his application for vacation of ad interim ex parte order has been finally decided. However, at this stage, impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. Let Trial Court decide appellant’s application for vacation of ad interim ex parte order and while doing so, appellant and respondent shall also be heard. 8. Disposed of on the aforesaid observations. 9. Contempt petition, CCP(S) no.381/2021, in view of above, is closed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 16.07.2025 “Imtiyaz” Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.10.2025 14:04