S. No.87 Supp List ,,IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.564/2025 CM No.8489/2025 Date of Pronouncement:19.12.2025 Uploaded on: 20.12.2025 ABDUL RASHID MALIK …..Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr.P.S.Ahmad, Advocate V/s MST HANEEFA AND OTHERS … ..Respondent(s) Through : None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT(ORAL) 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashment of order dated 23.10.2025 passed by learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. It appears that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition, possession and permanent prohibitory injunction before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag (hereinafter referred to be as “the trial Court”) against the respondents/defendants. Alongside the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The said application came to be decided by the learned trial Court in terms of impugned order CM(M)No.564/2025 2 | P a g e dated 23.10.2025, whereby the prayer of the plaintiff was declined and his application was dismissed. The learned trial Court further permitted defendant No.1 to raise construction of the suit property subject to filing of undertaking that she will remove the construction at her own cost in case she fails to establish her right. 4. The aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court is appealable in nature in terms of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC. It is a settled law that when an appeal can be filed before the higher Court under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court ought not to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. This position of law has been reiterated and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of S.Kalaimamani & Or vs. DS.S.Sudhakaran & Ors., decided on 27.11.2025. 5. In view of the above, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable and is, accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal before the concerned District Judge. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 19.12.2025 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 20.12.2025 16:55