S. No. 2 Regular List IN THE COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 475/2025, CM No.7159/2025 Ghulam Ahmad Bhat …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Raja Rathore, Advocate. V/s Ghulam Mohammad Bhat and Ors … ..Respondent(s) Through : None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has thrown challenge to orders dated 12.02.2025, 04.07.2025 and 01.09.2025, passed by learned Munsiff Dangiwacha (hereinafter referred to as <the trial Court=). 2. It appears that the petitioner has filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants before the learned trial Court. The subject matter of the said suit is Iqrar nama dated 22.02.2012 in respect of the suit land falling under survey No.562 situated at chatlora. In the said suit an exparte interim order came to be passed by the learned trial Court on 24.01.2018, whereby the defendants/respondents were temporarily restrained from interfering in the suit land. On 17.10.2018, with the consent of the counsels appearing for the parties, the learned trial Court disposed of the application for grant of interim injunction by p. 2 directing the parties to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the suit land. 3. It appears that the defendants filed an application before the learned trial Court seeking implementation of order dated 17.10.2018 on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff is changing the nature of the suit land. The learned trial Court passed impugned order dated 12.02.2025 on the said application and Tehsildar Watergam was directed to implement status quo order dated 17.10.2018 on spot. 4. It further appears that another application came to be filed by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking clarification of order dated 24.01.2018. Vide impugned order dated 04.07.2025 the learned trial Court observed that the application is misconceived because order dated 24.01.2018 does not call for any clarification as the same is self evident. 5. It also appears that the plaintiff/petitioner filed another application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Dy.Commissioner Sopore, Tehsildar Watergam and Sub Inspector, Police Post, Rafiabad for having violated interim order passed by the said Court. The said application has been dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 01.09.2025 by observing that the persons against whom contempt proceedings are sought to be initiated are not parties to the suit. p. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 7. Perusal of the record shows that initially exparte interim order dated 24.01.2018 came to be passed by the learned trial Court in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants, whereby they were directed not to interfere in the suit land. However, at the time of final disposal of interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, with the consent of the parties, order dated 17.10.2018 came to be passed whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo on spot. 8. Respondents/defendants made an application before the trial court complaining that the order of status quo is being violated by the petitioner/plaintiff as he is blocking the road leading towards the suit property and that he is changing the nature of the suit property. The learned trial Court passed impugned order dated 12.02.2025 directing the concerned Tehsildar to implement the status quo order on spot. The said order is perfectly in accordance with law and, as such, does not call for any interference. 9. So far as impugned order dated 04.07.2025 is concerned, the same has been passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the petitioner seeking clarification of order dated 24.01.2018. As already stated, vide the said order the p. 4 defendants/respondents were restrained from interfering in the suit land. The order is explicit and does not call for any clarification. Learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly declined to make any clarification in the matter. 10. That takes us to impugned order dated 01.09.2025. The plaintiff had moved an application before the trial Court complaining that the Additional Dy.Commissioner Sopore, Tehsildar Watergam and Sub Inspector of Police concerned are violating the order of status quo dated 17.10.2018. 11. The aforesaid officials are not parties to the suit, though it appears that the plaintiff has moved an application before the trial Court for impleading them as defendants. Therefore, they are not bound by order dated 17.10.2018. Learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly declined to entertain the application of the plaintiff/petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings against the aforesaid three officers. 12. For what has been discussed hereinabove, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.11.2025 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 06.11.2025 12:10