Serial No. 16 Reg Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 229/2024 CM(3913/2024). AB REHMAN LONE (SENIOR CITIZEN). …Petitioner (s) Through: Ms. Rubia Hassan, Advocate. VERSUS GH MOHI UD DIN LONE AND ORS. Through: None. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 05-12-2025 01. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 20th of June 2023 passed by the learned Sub-Judge , (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Bandipora, (hereinafter referred as “the trial court’), whereby, on the basis of the alleged consensus of the parties, the application for grant of ad-interim temporary Injunction filed by the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos 1 to 4 has been allowed. 02. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner for challenging the impugned order passed by the trial court is that neither the petitioner, who happens to be defendant No. 2 to the suit, nor his counsel, has signed on the margin of order sheet dated 20th of June 2023 in support of the consensus recorded by the learned trial Court. It has been submitted that it was not open to the trial court to pass the impugned order whereby ex-parte interim order dated 2nd of December 2021 has been made absolute till the final adjudication of the suit, merely on the basis of the alleged consensus of the parties, when the petitioner/Defendant No. 2 was not represented before the court at the relevant time. 03. A perusal of the record would reveal that the impugned order dated 20th of June 2023 bears the signatures of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 on the margin of the order sheet in proof of their consent to the passing of the said order. However, neither the signature of the petitioner/Defendant No. 2 nor the signature of his counsel are appearing on the margin of order sheet of 20th of June, 2023. . 04. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner/Defendant No. 2 is represented before the trial court by another counsel, namely Shri Jan Mohammad Mir, and not by the counsel representing Defendant No. 1. In these circumstances, the consensus of the parties that has been recorded by the trial court while passing impugned order dated 20th of June 2023 is incomplete, inasmuch as no consent of the petitioner /Defendant No. 2 has been sought prior to the passing of the said order. 05. In view of the above, the impugned order, is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside, and the application filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary Injunction is restored to its original position. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the said application afresh, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. 06. Disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 05-12-2025 Showkat Khan