Sr. No. 27 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM (M) No. 173/2025 Vishal Mega Mart Private Limited …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate with Mr. Vastav Sharma, Advocate V/s AMSM Automart Private Limited and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 17.06.2025 1. Petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to question the interim order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Sub-Judge Special Mobile Magistrate (13th Finance), Jammu in Civil Suit No. 632/2025 titled AMSM Automart Pvt. Ltd. vs. J&K Bank Ltd., wherein the Court below has proceeded to direct the parties therein to maintain status quo with regard to encashment of the bank guarantee maintained with J&K Bank. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not only without jurisdiction but has been passed at the back of the petitioner, who being a necessary party in that suit, no order could have been passed in his absence. He further submits that the petitioner had no other alternative remedy but to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 3. According to him, respondent No. 1 (plaintiff before the Trial Court) is liable to pay a certain outstanding amount to the petitioner towards the cost of products duly supplied under a valid and subsisting Franchise and Product Supply Agreement executed between the parties. So much so, the said respondent, in a recent communication, has cooked up a false story of fraud only with the intention to gain an unlawful advantage. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material annexed, it is forthcoming that a suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 before the Trial Court, wherein an interim order has been passed, which is subject to objections from the other side. There appears to be a contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, which has given rise to certain disputes, and respondent No. 1, without impleading the petitioner, has succeeded in stalling the encashment/release of the bank guarantee to the detriment of the petitioner. 5. Once there was a subsisting contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the suit could not have been laid without impleading the former as a party to the proceedings. However, given the fact that the petitioner is not a party before the Trial Court, he had no other remedy but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. In order to avoid inconvenience and to administer justice, intervention of this Court is required. 6. After hearing the petitioner and on perusal of the material, it is seen that the factum of the bank guarantee is also a contract between the bank and the guarantor, which cannot be restrained on vague apprehension or unverified claims. It is also well settled that suing a third party in place of the bank, or vice versa, cannot be permitted, especially when it undermines the legal autonomy of the bank guarantee mechanism. 7. In that background, the present petition is taken up for consideration and is disposed of with the direction that, since the order under challenge is in the nature of an interim order which has a limited life and having been obtained at the back of the petitioner, its continuance is likely to affect the interest of the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the Trial Court to take necessary steps to implead the petitioner as a party to the suit before it, so as to effectively and conclusively decide the merits of the suit. 8. This Court is conscious of the fact that the plaintiff before the Trial Court has resorted to bypass a necessary party and filed the suit in his absence in order to gain an undue advantage, which, if allowed, is sure to cause a miscarriage of justice. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file an application before the Trial Court for his impleadment as a necessary party, and the Trial Court shall proceed to implead him accordingly. After providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the suit, the Trial Court shall proceed to either continue the order dated 05.06.2025 or pass any other order as it may deem fit. Until then, the order dated 05.06.2025 is directed to be kept in abeyance. 10. Disposed of. (Sanjay Parihar) Judge Jammu: 17.06.2025 Shafqat