Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15039 (JK)

MEEMBA v. NISAR AHMAD BHAT

CM(M)/539/2025 · 2025-12-05

Sanjay Dhar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CM(M) No.539/2025 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.539/2025 MEEMA ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT(S) Through: -Mr.Manzoor-ul-Haq, Advocate Vs. NISAR AHMAD BHAT ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: -None. CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 05.12.2025 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama, whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2025 passed by learned Munsiff (Additional Special Mobile Magistrate) Awantipora, has been dismissed. 2) It is pertinent to mention here that learned Munsiff (Special Mobile Magistrate) Awantipora (hereafter referred to be as “the trial Court”), has vide order dated 27.08.2025, while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the respondent defendant, rejected the plaint. As per Section 2(2) of CPC, a decree includes rejection of a plaint Sr. No.66 Suppl.1 List CM(M) No.539/2025 2 | P a g e and, as such, an order rejecting a plaint is appealable as original decree in terms of Section 96 of the CPC. 3) The first appellate Court, namely, the Court of Principal District Judge, Pulwama entertained the appeal against order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the trial Court and proceeded to dismiss the appeal in terms of the impugned order dated 07.11.2025. The decree passed by learned trial Court has merged with order passed by the first Appellate Court. Thus the same is appealable in terms of Section 100 of CPC. 4) The petitioner instead of filing a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5) It is a settled law that High Court would be reluctant to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in a case where a litigant has alternative remedy available to him. Therefore, the instant petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available under law. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 05.12.2025 Sarveeda 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 08.12.2025 11:38