Serial No.04 REGULAR CAUSE LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 34/2026 CM(397/2026) Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh and Another …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Younis Ahad, Advocate Vs. Ali Mohammad Sheikh ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 23.02.2026 1. The two petitioners are defendants in a civil suit preferred by the respondent-Ali Mohammad Sheikh before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Pulwama. 2. The trial court of learned Sub Judge, Pulwama, by virtue of an order dated 13.08.2025, has disposed of an application for temporary injunction thereby making absolute the interim direction of status quo given in terms of order dated 01.07.2025. 3. The petitioners, being aggrieved of said status quo direction placed upon them in the context of their construction intended at the site preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the appellate court of the learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama, which by virtue of an order dated 10.11.2025, has dismissed said appeal of the petitioners by holding the order of the trial court to be meeting the requirements of law, which being prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 4. The petitioners are now taking a chance through the medium of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with respect to the adjudication so made by the two courts below. 5. This Court, in terms of order dated 06.02.2026, called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to place on record the photographs of the offending construction which came to be halted by the intervention of the status quo vis-à-vis the adjoining building of the respondent. 6. The petitioners have come forward with the requisite photographs which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be the photographs of the site in reference in the context of the building construction intended by the petitioners vis-à-vis the existing adjoining building of the respondent. 7. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, does not have the latitude of positioning itself in place of the trial court as well as the appellate court for examining and evaluating as to whether grant of temporary injunction in the form of status quo by the court below is factually and legally correct or not. 8. Hence, as such, this petition is dismissed. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 23.02.2026 “Mir Arif”