Sr. No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA 94/2025 CM(2462/2025) MST. SALEEMA …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Fayaz Ahmad Lone, Advocate Vs. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ MIR AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sikander Hayaat, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 07-05-2025 1. Appellant (Mst. Saleema) has filed an intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal against an order dated 05.04.2025, passed by the Executing Court, vide which, while issuing notice to the judgment debtors, by an interim measure, they have been injuncted from selling/transferring/alienating the properties indicated in the said order. Further, the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, was required to attach the said properties. 2. Ex facie, the order, referred to above, was to remain operative for a period of four weeks. And post order dated 05.04.2025, the appellant had also moved an application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, indicating her grievances as also that the properties that have been attached actually belong to her. Whereas, the judgment debtors, who happen to be her sons and are currently lodged in Central Jail, Mathura (UP), have no right, title or interest therein. 3. Apparently, the Executing Court is in seisin of the dispute and the arrangements set out in the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 was to remain operative only for a period of four weeks. We are informed that the matter is listed today at Serial No. 83, before the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute either that the Executing Court upon taking cognizance of the application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC (Ibid) issued notice to the respondent-decree holder and the matter is now posted for 28.05.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder is also present in the Court and upon being pointedly asked, he fairly submits that the response/objections, if any, to the application moved by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 58 of CPC would be furnished within a week from today. 5. Thus, in the given circumstances, when the matter is at large before the Executing Court, we are dissuaded to interfere with the orders that are being assailed before this Court. However, the matter being time sensitive and in the wake of the factual position obtaining in this case, we consider it expedient to request the learned Single Judge to consider preponing the hearing in the application under Order 21, Rule 58 of CPC moved by the appellant. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the observations recorded hitherto above. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 07-05-2025 Junaid