S. No. 157 Suppl.3 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.162/2025 Caveat No.941/2025 \ Gulzar Ahmad Thakur and Anr. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Asif Ahmad Bhat, Advocate. V/s Syed Sajad Hussain and Anr. …..Respondent(s) Through : Mr.Tasaduq H.Khawja, Advocate Mr. Iman Abdul Muiz, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 29.04.2025 1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition have called in question order dated 09.04.2025 passed by learned Munsiff Tangmarg in a suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners/defendants. 2. Vide the impugned order learned trial Court has observed that the property in dispute is required to be preserved in present state till the demarcation is undertaken by the revenue authorities. Accordingly, SHO Police Station Tangmarg has been directed to implement the interim order dated 01.01.2025 passed by learned Munsiff Tangmarg in letter and spirit, whereby the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. CM(M)No.162 of 2025 2 | P a g e 3. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Tasaduq H.Khawja, Advocate who is on caveat appears on behalf of respondents and waives notice. Caveat stands discharged. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. It appears that a suit has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners/defendants before the trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from land measuring 03 kanals under survey No.40 Min and land measuring 01 kanal under survey No.41 Min, situated at Shrai Tehsil Tangmarg. 6. It appears that on 01.01.2025 learned trial Court passed an interim order whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. It also appears that the petitioners/defendants filed an application for clarification of order dated 01.01.2025, whereby a clarification was sought whether or not order dated 01.01.2025 extends to the land measuring 09 marlas falling under survey No.41 Min, which was claimed to be in possession of the defendants. The learned trial Court clarified the said order by providing that order dated 01.01.2025 does not pertain to land measuring 09 marlas falling under survey No.41 Min, which prima facie appears to be in possession of the defendants. 7. Another application came to be filed by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court seeking implementation of status quo order CM(M)No.162 of 2025 3 | P a g e dated 01.01.2025 alleging therein that under the garb of clarificatory order the defendants are raising construction in the portion of the suit property which is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The defendants also filed an application seeking implementation of order of status quo read with clarificatory order, alleging therein that the plaintiffs under the garb of status quo order are not permitting the defendants to raise construction over the portion of land measuring 09 marlas under khasra no.41 Min which is in their possession. 8. The learned trial court after hearing the parties passed the impugned order directing SHO Police Station Tangmarg to implement order dated 01.01.2025 in its letter and spirit and ensure that no construction is carried out in the land falling under khasra No.40 and 41 Min situated at Shrai Tehsil Tangmarg until further directions are issued. While passing the said order learned trial Court noted that the land under survey Nos. 40 and 41Min has not been demarcated as yet which has become reason of dispute between the parties. 9. The petitioners/defendants have challenged the impugned order on the ground that demarcation of land had already been conducted and this fact was taken note of by this Court while deciding writ petition filed by the defendants against the State authorities and the plaintiffs which is bearing WP(C) No.380/2025. Therefore, the observation of the trial Court that no demarcation of land in question has been conducted is contrary to the records. It has been CM(M)No.162 of 2025 4 | P a g e further contended that it was not open to the learned trial court to pass the impugned order without deciding the interim application of the plaintiffs on its merits after hearing the parties. It has been further contended that the petitioners are in possession of valid building permission, as such, the learned trial Court could not have restrained them from raising construction on their own land. 10. So far as the demarcation of the land in question is concerned, it is true that while deciding WP(C) No.380/2025 this Court in its order dated 04.04.2025 has noted that the Tehsildar concerned has undertaken demarcation of the land and has submitted his report. It has also been noted in the said order that the defendants/petitioners herein have raised objections to this demarcation report. Thus, even if it is assumed that the demarcation of the land in question has been conducted by the Tehsildar concerned, still because the petitioners have themselves objected to demarcation report, without determining the merits of the objections of the petitioners/defendants the position existing on spot could not have been allowed to change, particularly when the plaintiffs were alleging that the defendants are raising construction on their portion of land under the garb of clarificatory order. The learned trial court by passing the impugned order has in fact protected the rights of the petitioners/defendants as well, because it is on the basis of their application that even the plaintiffs have been asked not to raise any construction on their portion of land till further orders. Thus the impugned order clearly balances the rights CM(M)No.162 of 2025 5 | P a g e of the parties and preserves the subject matter of lis till such time the interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is finally decided by the said Court. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court which has been passed in the best interests of both the parties. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 29.04.2025 Sarveeda Nissar 1. 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 01.05.2025 13:41