RSA No.12 of 2026 1 | P a g e S. No.133 Suppl. List 1 ,,,IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RSA No.12/2026, CM No.(3194/2026) Caveat No.659/2026 Caveat 659/2026 INTIZAMIA COMMITTEE FRUIT MANDI TH.ITS PRESIDENT …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Hakim Suhail Ishtiyaq, Advocate V/s GHULAM MUSTAFA HAJINI … ..Respondent(s) Through: Vaseem Aslam, Advocate for Caveator. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 03.06.2026 1. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Caveator. I have also gone through the memo of appeal and the documents placed on record. 2. The appellant has challenged judgment dated 05.02.2026 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) whereby judgment and decree passed by learned 1st Civil Subordinate Judge (Municipal Magistrate), Srinagar on 31.10.2018 in a suit filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant and proforma respondents No.2 and 3 RSA No.12 of 2026 2 | P a g e has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned trial Court for its fresh decision in accordance with law. 3. It appears that respondent No.1 had filed a suit before the learned trial Court seeking a declaration that letter No.SDA/DLM 470-75 dated 15.06.2010 issued by respondent No.3 herein is in violation of rules and regulations and, as such, illegal and void with a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining appellant/defendant No.3 from raising any kind of construction over the land measuring 10Marlas under Khasra No.20/Min situated at Barthana Fruit Mandi Srinagar. The learned trial Court after full dressed trial of the suit dismissed the same in terms of judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018. The said judgment and decree was assailed by respondent No.1/plaintiff by way of appeal before the learned 1st Appellate Court, who vide impugned judgment dated 15.02.2026 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh decision by the said Court. 4. The present appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for determination by this Court. i) Whether it was legally permissible for the 1st Appellate Court to absolve the plaintiff from its obligation to prove identity, ownership and possession of the suit land and direct the trial Court to adopt the proactive role by collecting the evidence in this regard. RSA No.12 of 2026 3 | P a g e ii) Whether it was legally permissible for 1st Appellate Court to rely upon the documents which were not permitted to be read in evidence in terms of order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the same Court. iii) Whether it was open to the 1st Appellate Court to treat a communication addressed by the plaintiff to defendant-SDA voicing his grievance as notice under Section 48 of the J&K Development Act, when the said communication has not been proved during trial of the case, nor there is any averment in the plaint to this effect. iv) Whether the provisions contained in Section 48 of the J&K Development are mandatory in nature and, if so, what is the effect of non-compliance with the said provision on the maintainability of the suit. 5. The appeal is admitted to hearing. Post admission notice is accepted by Shri Vaseem Aslam appearing on behalf of contesting respondents. Notice be issued to the other respondents subject to the appellant taking necessary steps within a period of two weeks’ time. In the meantime, till next date of hearing, the impugned judgment passed by learned 1st Appellate Court shall remain stayed. 6. List on 20.07.2026. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.06.2026 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 08.06.2026 16:13