Sr. No.128 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CM(M) No. 76/2025 CM No. 1597/2025 Kuldeep Chand S/o Sh. Shiv Chand R/o Village Rehmbal Chopra Shop, Garhi Udhampur. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Manik Dutt, Advocate. V/s Gurdayal Sharma S/o Munshi Ram R/o Village Ballian Tehsil and District Udhampur. …. Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 19.03.2025 01. In the instant petition, the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court is aggrieved of an order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Udhampur (for short ‘trial Court’) in counter claim titled ‘Gurdayal Sharma V/s Kuldeep Chand’. 02. Vide impugned order dated 10.03.2025, passed by the trial Court, the parties have been directed to maintain status quo, with respect to the suit property. 03. The case of the petitioner is that he had file a civil suit for injunction based upon the duly executed and registered sale deed by virtue of which he has purchased some land and the trial Court has passed an order of injunction against the respondent-defendant-Gurdyal Sharma who had filed the application against the petitioner before the trial Court under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for issuing ad-interim injunction and obtained a status quo order dated 10.03.2025. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the order impugned dated 10.03.2025 has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 05. He further submits that the order is bad, therefore, he has challenged the same through the medium of the instant writ petition. It is clear from the order impugned that the petitioner has been given the liberty to move a motion for vacation of interim order, even prior to the next date fixed in the case i.e. 22.03.2025. 06. Petitioner ought to have approach the same Court at the first instance, because liberty has been given to him seeking vacation of the impugned order, which is claimed to have been passed in his absence. 07. Since, the order impugned is not a final order, as the same is subject to objections, alternation or modification, if any, from the petitioner as well as the petitioner has been given liberty to make an application for vacation of the impugned order, even prior to the next date fixed in the case i.e. 22.03.2025. 08. Therefore, in such a situation, the instant petition is disposed of by providing liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial Court by making an appropriate motion for vacation along with the objections, if any. On doing so, the trial Court shall hear and decide the application expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, strictly in accordance with the law. 09. The instant petition, is accordingly, disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE Jammu 19.03.2025 Renu