HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 168/2025 CM No. 3513/2025 S Harminder Singh @ S. Harmohinder Singh …..Appellants Through: Mr. L.K Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate . Vs Narinder Kumar Jain and ors. .…. Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Bakshi, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 17.09.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged orders dated 23.01.2017, 02.02.2017 and 16.12.2024 passed by learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”). 2. Vide order dated 23.01.2017, the learned trial Court has passed an ex-pate interim injunction whereby, the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. Vide order dated 02.02.2017, a direction has been issued by the trial Court to SHO Police Station, Trikuta Nagar to implement order dated 23.01.2017 whereas, vide order dated 16.12.2024, a similar direction has been passed by the trial Court to SHO Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu. 3. I have heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the record. Sr. No. 14 2 CM(M) No. 168/2025 4. It appears that respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant before the trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession over the land measuring 03 kanals comprised in khasra No. 260-min, land measuring 01 kanal 10 marlas comprised in khasra No. 260 and land measuring 01 kanal 10 marlas comprised in khasra No. 260 situated at Narwal Bala, Jammu. On 23.01.2017, the trial Court passed an ex-parte interim direction against the petitioner/defendant in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff along with his plaint. Vide the said order, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. It seems that the trial Court has not finally decided the application of plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC till date. 5. On 23.01.2017, the plaintiff moved an application before the trial Court complaining that status quo with respect to suit property is being violated by the defendant and accordingly, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 02.02.2017, directed SHO Police Station, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu to implement order dated 23.01.2017. Again on 16.12.2024, a similar application came to be filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court and a similar direction came to be passed by the trial Court in the said application. 6. It comes to the fore from the aforesaid sequence of events that root of the present proceedings is the omission on the part of the trial Court to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC during all these years. 3 CM(M) No. 168/2025 7. Another aspect of the matter which is required to be noticed is that the trial Court, while passing the ex-parte interim order dated 23.01.2017 has not recorded a tentative opinion as to which of the parties is in possession of the suit property. Without recording a tentative finding about the status of possession of the suit property, the trial Court has proceeded to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the said property. It is a settled law that a civil Court while passing an order of status quo with regard to ownership or possession of suit property, has to record tentative finding as to which of the parties is in possession/ownership of the suit property. In the absence of such a finding, it leads to a situation where it becomes difficult to implement the order on spot. The implementing agencies like revenue or police find it impossible to implement such an order, which ultimately gives rise to multiplicity of proceedings including contempt proceedings. 8. Thus, the genesis of the present petition as well as the applications filed by the plaintiff seeking implementation of order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the trial Court is the manner in which the said order has been passed by the trial Court. A perusal of the said order reveals that the trial Court has simply reiterated the contents of the plaint and thereafter directed the parties to maintain status quo without applying its mind to the pleadings and the material on record and without recording as to which of the parties appears to be in the possession of the suit property. Thus, two factors have complicated the controversy between the parties. . One, that the trial Court while passing order dated 23.01.2017 has failed 4 CM(M) No. 168/2025 to record tentative finding with regard to status of suit property and second, the trial Court has failed to adhere to the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC which casts a duty upon the Court to decide an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC within a period of one month if ex-parte interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff. 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide and dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC within a period of 30 days from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the said Court. Till such time, the application is finally decided by the trial Court, order dated 06.06.2025 passed by this Court whereby, orders dated 02.02.2017 and 16.12.2024 passed by the trial Court have been kept in abeyance, shall remain in force. 10. The parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for the purpose of expeditious disposal of the aforesaid application. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court forthwith. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 17.09.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.09.22 08:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document