LPA No. 24/2025 Page 1 of 3 Sr. No. 4 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 24/2025 CM No. 505/2025 Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Adv. Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Sheikh & Ors ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE O R D E R 03.03.2025 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is aggrieved of the order dated 1st January 2025 passed in WP (C) No. 3091/2024. The order under challenge is an interim order which was passed after hearing the appellant herein who was on caveat. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant was informed by this Court that the appropriate course of action may be to file an application for modification of the order dated 1st January 2025 along-with an application for early listing as the order under challenge is only an interim order. However, learned counsel for the appellant has chosen to argue the appeal before us today. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows:- 4. The appellant before this Court and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers. Dispute arose between them with regard to two properties on account of which two civil suits were filed by the appellant herein. The appeals were thereafter withdrawn unconditionally by the appellant herein on the ground that there has been a compromise that has been arrived at between the parties. On the basis of the compromise, the respondents started raising Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.03.2025 LPA No. 24/2025 Page 2 of 3 constructions on the lands in question. Thereafter, the appellant before this Court approached the Special Tribunal in a revision against the order passed by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation granting permission to the respondents to raise the construction vide permission dated 11th June 2024 and 8th October 2024. 5. The operation of the aforesaid permission were stayed by the Special Tribunal vide order dated 9th December 2024, against which order, the respondents preferred a challenge before this Court by filing WP (C) No. 3091/ 2024 which is still pending before the learned Single Judge in which an interim order dated 1st January 2025 was passed. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are two-fold. He has stated that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge after hearing the appellant, who was on caveat, has rendered the revision pending before the Special Tribunal filed by the appellant infructuous, as the respondents would now continue with the construction and there would be nothing left for the Special Tribunal to decide. Secondly, he has argued that the appropriate course of action for the learned Single Judge would have been to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Special Tribunal to decide the case expeditiously. 7. It would be sufficient for this Court to refer to paragraph No. 8 of the impugned order which reflects that the learned Single Judge has perused the record of the case and discovered that two civil suits were withdrawn by appellant on 31st September 2024 and 25th October 2024 and at the time of the withdrawal, it was stated by the appellant that his grievance stands redressed and that he was withdrawing the said suits unconditionally without seeking any leave to file fresh proceedings against the petitioner. It may also be added herein that the learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned during the course of his argument that he has instructed the counsel before the learned trial court to move an appropriate application for the restoration of the civil suit which have already been disposed of. He has however stated that he does not have any information regarding the fate of the said application. Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.03.2025 LPA No. 24/2025 Page 3 of 3 8. Learned Single Judge further observed in paragraph No. 8 that the suits were withdrawn only after the issuance of the two building permissions in favour of the respondents herein which according to the learned Single Judge was prima facie reflective of the fact that the appellant herein chose to withdraw the two civil suits unconditionally even after having knowledge of the fact that the two building permissions which have been stayed by the learned Special Tribunal (subsequently restored by the impugned order), were within the knowledge of the appellant herein. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge further observed that “prima facie, it appears that the respondent No. 6 has thereafter taken a U-turn and challenged the building permissions by way of a revision petition before the Special Tribunal. This raises a question mark about the conduct of respondent No. 6. Hence a case for grant of interim indulgence is made out.” Thus, it reflects that there has been no miscarriage of justice as the said order was passed bi-party and there is no perversity or legal infirmity in the said order as the contentions of both the sides were referred to and only thereafter, the order was passed. Further, the factual aspects seem to be in consonance with the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court today. 9. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 1st January 2025. 10. The appeal is rejected. However, this Court requests that the learned Single Judge not being influenced by the observations made by the order passed today, and that the writ petition itself be decided on the merits of the case as borne out by the records. In addition to the above, we request the learned Single Judge, if possible, hear the case as expeditiously as possible. (PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 03.03.2025 Altaf Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.03.2025