S. No.76 Suppl. List ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP No.43 of 2025 Mst.Zoona Begum …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Mr.R.A.Jan, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Humaira Sajad and Mr.Adil Mushtaq, Advocates V/s Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh and Ors … ..Respondent(s) Through : None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 22.05.2025 1. The petitioner has sought review of order dated 06.05.2025 passed by this Court, whereby petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging order dated 12.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sogam Kupwara has been decided. 2. Heard and considered. 3. The petitioner had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India for challenging order dated 12.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Sogam Kupwara, whereby application of RP No.43/2025 2 | P a g e respondent No.2 seeking permission to raise construction on a portion of the suit property was allowed. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of judgment under review in the following manner:- (I) The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the learned trial court seeking disposal of her interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC on its merits. (II) It shall be open to the petitioner to urge before the learned trial court to enlarge the scope of order of status quo so as to cover the activity regarding construction on the suit property at the time of passing of final order in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and if such a prayer is made by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned trial court, the same shall be considered by the said court in accordance with law after hearing both the parties and without getting influenced by the observations made by the said court in the impugned order dated 12.04.2025. 4. While passing the aforesaid directions, this Court after noticing the covenant of ex parte interim order dated 29.10.2022 passed by learned trial court in an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the respondents, concluded that the status quo order passed by learned trial court is in respect of possession of the suit property only and that there is no restraint on the parties to raise construction on the portions of property which are in their respective possession. On this ground this Court came to the conclusion that there were no fetters placed upon the RP No.43/2025 3 | P a g e respondents by the learned trial Court to raise construction on portion of the suit property which is in his possession. 5. The petitioner has sought review of the impugned judgment on the grounds that this Court has erroneously interpreted order of status quo dated 29.10.2022 passed by the trial court. It has been claimed that as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases reported in 1987 SCC (Supp) 394 and 1994 (2) SCC 266 expression “status quo” would mean existing state of things at any given point of time. Thus, according to the review petitioner the interpretation given by this Court to the expression “status quo” is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which amounts to an error apparent on the face of record. It has also been contended that because this Court has not set aside order dated 12.04.2025 passed by learned trial Court, therefore, the petitioner has been rendered without any remedy, inasmuch as, the trial court while deciding interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC would be bound by the observations of the said Court recorded in order dated 12.04.2025. 6. So far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that “status quo” means “existing state of things obtaining on spot”, but when RP No.43/2025 4 | P a g e the order of status quo is qualified by the Court passing such order, the things become different. In the instant case learned trial court, while passing interim order of status quo on 29.10.2022 has qualified it by providing that the parties shall maintain status quo on spot viz. possession, meaning thereby that order of status quo is only with respect to the possession of the property. It is further provided in the order that party in possession shall not be debarred from pursuing agricultural activities on spot. Thus, the order of status quo has been qualified and clarified by the learned trial court and it does not cover the activity of raising construction on spot. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the interpretation of “status quo” adopted by this Court and the interpretation of said expression adopted by the Supreme Court in its various judgments. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without any substance. 7. Regarding the 2nd contention of the petitioner, it is correct that order dated 12.04.2025 has not been set aside by this Court by virtue of the judgment under review, but it has been clearly provided in the said judgment that learned trial court while considering the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC shall not get influenced by the observations made RP No.43/2025 5 | P a g e by the said court on 12.04.2025. Thus takes care of apprehension of the petitioner. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to review the judgment dated 06.05.2025. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.05.2025 Sarveeda Nissar 1. 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 26.05.2025 17:24