S. No. 113 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR FAO No. 25/2025 CM No. 4460/2025 Caveat No. 1361/2025 Mohammad Ishaq Pampori …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. M. Dar, Advocate Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 23.07.2025 1. With the appearance of caveator, caveat stands discharged. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Setting aside of Order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar, (for short “the Trial Court”) in File No.119/N titled as “Mohammad Ishaq Pampori vs. J&K Bank and Others”, whereby ad-interim application of appellant has been dismissed, is sought for in this appeal precisely on the ground that the Trial Court without examining the record assumed the satisfaction that the appellant has failed to prove his case. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the relief claimed by plaintiff/appellant in the suit itself has becomes redundant as he has sought the relief with regard to rentals upto the period which expired in August 2023. The relief claimed in the suit reads as under:- (i) Declaring the impugned communication dated 13.1.2020 issued by defendant bank terminating the tenancy of two stories comprising in the multi storied commercial building popularly known as Kara Building situated at Court Road Lal Chowk, Srinagar before expiry of the lock-in period of 10 years which would expire in August 2023 on the strength of the rent agreement executed on 09.08.2008 read with supplementary agreement dated 28.02.2013 as null and void, ineffective, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff; (ii) Declaring the plaintiff entitled to the payment of rentals upto minimum lock-in period expiring in August 2023; (iii) Declaring the plaintiff entitled to receive back the possession in the manner and in condition it was taken over by the defendant bank on account of replacement of granite flooring with ordinary title and replacement of Deodar wood shutters with ordinary (low cost) steel shutters for windows; (iv) Declaring the plaintiff entitled to damages caused by the defendant bank to the suit premises; (v) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant bank from vacating the premises, prematurely without completion of Lock-in period which would expire in August 2023; (vi) Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant bank to restore the possession of the structure obtaining on the date when the possession was taken over and making payment wards the damages caused to the structure as would be assessed by this Court; (vii) Any other decree, order or relief which this court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances attendant to the cased be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 5. When a question was put to learned counsel for the appellant that as to why he seeks a direction upon respondent-bank to continue beyond the expiry period, he fairly submits that notice in respect of which suit has been filed and the period claimed, has already expired. 6. He at the most could be entitled to the rentals, if any, due or outstanding against the respondent-bank for which he could file a suit for recovery of rent. In case, the respondent-bank intends to leave the premises that too beyond the lock-in period, i.e. August 2023, they cannot be restrained to do so. The relief to that extent which is being sought by the appellant cannot be granted and is, accordingly, rejected. The Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion while deciding the application of appellant filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and rejected the prayer made in it, which otherwise has become futile. 7. Having regard to the relief claimed in the original suit, it would not survive after August 2023. Refusal of interim injunction is, therefore, justified and does not call for any interference. The Court cannot extend the period of tenancy which has already expired and cannot force the respondent-bank to continue in possession as a tenant and to pay rent to the appellant. 8. For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, appellant shall be at liberty to seek rentals, if any, due to him till August 2023. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 23.07.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 25.07.2025 09:55