Serial No. 89 Suppl. List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 306/2025 Caveat No. 1869/2025 Ashaq Husssain Bhat and Anr. ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate with Ms. Sharaf Wani, Advocate V/S Fayaz Ahmad Bhat and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Showkat Ali Khan, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE (ORDER) 05.08.2025 Caveat No. 1869/2025 01. Heard learned counsel for the caveator. Caveat stands discharged. CM(M) No. 306/2025 01. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.07.2025, hereinafter for short as “impugned order”, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama for short “the trial Court” in an application filed in terms of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in case titled Fayaz Ahmad Bhat Vs. Ashiq Hussain Bhat and Ors., primarily on the ground that the impugned order is without jurisdiction having been passed by incompetent Court beyond the purview of Commercial Courts Act; having been passed in disregard to Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the petitioners were not put to notice before passing of the impugned order; the impugned order has been passed Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document in exparte although the petitioners were on caveat which fact stands recorded in the application filed under Section 9. 02. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioners and respondent No. 1 are paternal brothers, who had a property dispute amongst themselves as a result of which, a suit was filed for permanent injunction by petitioner No. 2, before the learned Sub Judge, Pulwama on 20.02.2025. The dispute later on got amicably resolved and a formal settlement was recorded by the Traders Federation, Pulwama, which was nominated by the parties to act as Arbitrator in the matter. The parties, accordingly, had filed a joint application for disposal of the suit and the learned Sub Judge, Pulwama disposed of and consigned the suit to records in light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, in terms of order dated 03.03.2025. The respondent No. 1, however, filed an application under Section 9 before the Principal District Judge, Pulwama, who entertained the same and initiated proceedings thereon and passed the impugned order. 03. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions has referred to and relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court delivered in cases titled Smt. Kalpana Kothari Vs. Smt. Sudha Yadav and Ors., State of UP Vs. M. K. Anthony, Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. and Arvind Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Kallinga Mining Corporation and Ors., reported as AIR 2002 SC 404; AIR 1985 SC 48; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1041 and (2007) 6 SCC 798. 05. The learned counsel for the caveator in support of his submissions has referred to and relied upon (2011) 6 SCC 321, titled Mahadev Govind Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Gharge and Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka. 06. The perusal of the impugned order would make it emphatically clear that the trial Court has entertained and proceeded with the application filed in terms of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, beyond the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plea taken by the petitioners in support of their case is found to be correct insofar as the exercise of excessive jurisdiction is concerned. The case of the petitioners is also found to be based on the correct premise that although the application filed in terms of Section 9 before the trial Court did mention the caveat application having been filed in the matter on its left indent, yet the trial Court passed an exparte order. The other plea of the petitioners that they were not heard also find support from the records. 07. The learned counsel for the parties have agreed to remand the case to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. 08. The petitioners have succeeded in carving out a case that warrants exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to prevent the abuse of process of law. 09. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication, strictly in terms of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, after hearing both the parties to the dispute. 10. Let the parties appear before the trial Court on 11.08.2025. 11. Disposed of along with connected CM(s). (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 05.08.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document