HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 19/2026 CM(176/2026) Caveat 2807/2025. GURMEET SINGH AND ORS. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat (Sopori), Advocate. Ms. Maria Jan, Advocate. VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Fayaz Ahmad Reshi, Advocate for R9 to R12. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER 31.01.2026 01. The Civil Court of Munsiff Magam has passed a decree dated 14.10.2025 in a civil suit on File No. 97/2019, which was preferred by the petitioners herein, and the said suit has come to suffer dismissal on merits in terms of the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2025. 02. Instead of availing the right of first appeal as available under Section 96 of the J&K Code of Civil Procedure, Svt., 1977 (1920 A.D.), as the origin of the suit was under the said Code, the plaintiffs/petitioners have rushed to this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India 22 Suppl-I read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court as well. 03. Surely, the mandate of Section 115(2) of the J&K Code of Civil Procedure Svt., 1977 does not allow any discretion to this Court to entertain the present petition on the revisional jurisdiction side, as the decree is amenable to first appeal before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Budgam and that leaves the present petition only to quote and cite Article 227 of the Constitution of India for its sustainability. 04. A civil court decree, right or wrong, passed between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be put to challenge as a matter of right under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by any of the aggrieved parties to lis in particular by the plaintiff/s. 05. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition and dismisses the same in limine with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioners to invoke the appellate remedy in terms of Section 96 of the J&K Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1977 within a period of ten days from the date of passing of this order. 06. In the event a civil first appeal comes to be so preferred within the time granted, the Appellate Court shall consider the condonation of delay by taking a lenient view of the situation, considering the fact that the would-be appellants have lost a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit property on which they allegedly claim to have a title and therefore should not be non- suited on the ground of delay. 07. Disposed of. 08. Caveat stands discharged. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 31.01.2026 Bisma Jan.