S. No.45 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CR No. 3/2024, CM No.(1200/2024) CM No.(392/2024) NAZIR AHMAD NATH ... Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr.Rizwan-ul-Zaman, Advocate. Vs. MST. AISHA AND ORS. …Respondent(s) Through: - Ms.Insha Rashid, Advocate for 1&2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 28.02.2025 1) The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged order dated 29.12.2023, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, whereby order dated 19.10.2023 passed by learned Munsiff Anantnag, in a suit filed by the respondents against the petitioner has been set aside. 2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. 3) It appears that a suit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) against the petitioner and respondent No.3 (defendants) before the Court of learned Munsiff Anantnag, seeking a declaration that sale deed executed with respect to the land measuring 12 marlas falling under survey No.873-min, situated at Khanabal Anantnag be CR No. 3/2024 P a g e | 2 of 5 declared as null and void. A further declaration that plaintiffs be declared as owners in possession of said land has also been sought. Besides this permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the suit land has also been sought. It appears that on 12.04.2023, an ex parte interim injunction came to be passed by learned Munsiff Anantnag, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question. The interim application came to be finally decided by the learned trial Court on 19.10.2023 and the said application was dismissed, as according to the learned trial Court the plaintiffs had failed to carve out a prima facie case in their favour. 4) The aforesaid order of learned trial Court came to be challenged by the plaintiffs by way of an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, who vide the impugned order set aside the order of learned trial Court and restrained the defendants from causing any interference in the suit property till disposal of main suit. 5) The main ground of challenge to the order impugned passed by learned Principal District Judge Anantnag is that despite the registered sale deed dated 06.04.2009 in respect of the suit land being on record of the trial Court and the Appellate Court, the learned Appellate Court has observed that the sale deed on record is not registered and on this basis the learned Appellate Court has observed that on the basis of an CR No. 3/2024 P a g e | 3 of 5 unregistered sale instrument no right has accrued in favour of the petitioner/defendant. To support his aforesaid contention the petitioner/defendant has placed on record a photo copy of the sale deed dated 06.04.2009 in respect of the suit land which appears to have been registered on 11.04.2009. The petitioner has also placed on record copy of mutation order, whereby entry of aforesaid registered sale deed has been made in the revenue record. 6) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2/plaintiffs has contended that the sale deed placed on record by the petitioner/defendant before the trial Court is a fictitious document and it bears a number of insertions, therefore the same cannot be relied upon. 7) If the contention of the petitioner that the registered sale deed was available on record of the trial Court as well as of the Appellate Court, is correct, then the observation of the learned Appellate Court that the sale deed on record is unregistered is contrary to the records. In such an eventuality it would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, thereby offering a ground to the petitioner/defendant to seek review of the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court. 8) Keeping in view the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that the sale deed produced by the petitioner before the Courts below is full of insertions, it would be appropriate if the matter is considered afresh by CR No. 3/2024 P a g e | 4 of 5 the Appellate Court on the basis of the record available before the trial Court/appellate Court. The same can be done by the Appellate Court in exercise of its powers of review. 9) In view of the above, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner herein is to file a review petition before the learned Appellate Court seeking review of order dated 29.12.2023 on the ground that despite registered sale deed being available on record, the same has not been taken into consideration by the said Court. 10) Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the learned Principal District Judge Anantnag seeking review of order dated 29.12.2023. In case the petitioner files a review petition within fifteen days from the date of this order before the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, the said Court shall, while considering the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the review petition, take into account the fact that the petitioner was pursuing the present revision petition before this Court. The learned Appellate Court would do well to consider the proposed review petition on its merits. 11) The learned Principal District Judge Anantnag is requested to decide the proposed review petition expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date the same is filed by the petitioner before the said Court. Till such time the review petition is decided by the learned CR No. 3/2024 P a g e | 5 of 5 Principal District Judge Anantnag, order dated 29.10.2023 passed by the said Court shall remain in abeyance. 12) A copy of this order be sent to learned Principal District Judge Anantnag for information. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 28.02.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No 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 01.03.2025 17:50