FAO No. 34/2025 Serial No.03 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR FAO No. 34/2025 Mohammad Akbar & Anr. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Shahnaz Nabi Ratanpuri, Advocate with Ms. Fiza, Advocate V/s Mohammad Baqir & Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 08.09.2025 1. The appellants herein in the instant Misc. appeal have questioned order dated 28th July, 2025 (for short “impugned order”), passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Ganderbal (for short „the trial court”) whereunder the interim application accompanying a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein against the defendants/respondents herein for partition, declaration and injunction qua the immoveable property claimed to have been inherited by the plaintiffs/appellants herein along with the defendants/respondents herein through inheritance from their predecessor in interest came to be dismissed. 2. The trial court after entertaining the suit, supra along with the application for grant of interim relief, supra had issued notice to the defendants/respondents herein who filed written statement to the suit as well as objections to the application for grant of interim relief, whereafter the trial court upon considering the application for grant of interim relief, dismissed the same on the premise that the plaintiffs/appellants herein have concealed the material facts qua the existence of a gift deeds as also a partition document, qua the properties FAO No. 34/2025 in question and relied upon by the defendants/respondents herein in the written statement and, consequently, found the conduct of the plaintiffs/appellants herein blameworthy and declined the grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants herein on account of suppression of said material facts. 3. The plaintiffs/appellants have questioned the impugned order on multiple grounds urged in the instant appeal Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 4. It is settled position of law that interim reliefs can always be granted in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief available to the parties on the final determination of their rights in the suit, appeal or any other proceedings and the primary purpose of granting of an interim relief has been held to be the preservation of the property in dispute till the legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties are adjudicated upon. It is equally settled law that the power to grant an interim relief by a court is extraordinary in nature and has to be exercised cautiously and with circumspection and a party is not entitled to an interim relief as a matter of right, but the grant of interim relief is in the discretion of a court which is to be granted if the court is satisfied that the cardinal principles governing and regulating the grant of interim relief lie in favour of the party claiming it. Law is also settled that the power of grant of interim relief is discretionary as also equitable in nature and being an equitable relief, a court has to keep in mind several factors and aspects, in that, a court of equity would exercise discretionary power in granting interim relief FAO No. 34/2025 only if justice, equity and good conscious requires the court to issue such an interim relief and the court is satisfied that its intervention is necessary in the interests of justice. The Apex Court in this regard in case titled as “Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, has inter- alia held that a court before grant of an interim relief has also besides other factors to consider whether the party applying for grant of interim relief has shown utmost good faith in seeking such interim relief. In Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others vs. Coca Cola Co. and others, reported in 1995 (5) SCC 545, the Apex Court has also ruled qua the grant of interim reliefs that the court before which interim relief is sought, is supposed to know the law, but it knows nothing about the facts, as such, it is incumbent on the applicant seeking interim relief to state the facts fully and fairly and if the party suppresses the material facts or is not candid in stating the facts, the Court for its own protection can refuse an interim relief, so that there is no abuse of process of Court by an unscrupulous litigant. A similar view has been earlier as well taken by the Apex Court in case titled as State of Harayana and others vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. and another reported in 1977 (2) SCC 431. 5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position and principles of law and coming to back to the case in hand, indisputably, the defendants/respondents herein before the trial court in the written statement filed to the suit supra have had specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs/appellants herein have suppressed and concealed the execution of gift deed as also a partition document qua the property in question FAO No. 34/2025 to which gift deed and document, the plaintiffs/appellants have had been also signatories. Perusal of the plaint/suit of the plaintiffs/appellants manifestly suggest that the plaintiffs/appellants have remained silent, qua the gift deed as well as the partition document, so much so, the plaintiffs/appellants have not even disputed or denied the aforesaid plea of the defendants/respondents herein taken by them in the written statement by filing any supplementary pleadings. Therefore, it cannot but be said that the plaintiffs/appellants herein have withheld the information qua the said deed and document from the trial court while maintaining the suit. 6. Since the perusal of the impugned order tends to show that the trial court has taken cognizance of the said position and has proceeded to consider the interim application inter-alia on the touch stone of doctrine of equity, this Court does not find any fault or error having been committed by the trial court while passing the impugned order and dismissing the interim application of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. 7. Viewed thus, this Court has no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. 9. Registry to send down a copy of this order to the trial court for information. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 08.09.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No. Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document :16.09.2025 10:00