Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/51/2026 of CHACHAL SINGH Vs RAMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS on 12 March 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 51/2026 CM No. 1525/2026 Chanchal Singh S/O Lt. Sandoor Singh R/O Village Baran Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rajneesh Raina, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abid Khan, Adv. Mr. Munish Malhotra, Adv. Mr.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM(M) No. 51/2026
CM No. 1525/2026
Chanchal Singh
S/O Lt. Sandoor Singh
R/O Village Baran
Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu.
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rajneesh Raina, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abid Khan, Adv.
Mr. Munish Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Rishu Rajeshwar, Adv.
1. Ramesh Kumar
S/O Late Munshi Ram
R/O Village Assarwan
Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu.
2. Shashi Devi
D/O Late Munshi Ram
R/O Village Assarwan
Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu.
3. Piyari Devi
Wd/O Late Munshi Ram,
R/O Village Assarwan
Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu.
.…. Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(12.03.2026)
1. The petitioner, through the medium of this petition, seeks quashment of order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu, in a Civil Suit No. 2502/2026 titled ‘Chanchal Singh Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors’. bearing whereby the trial Court without any reason, lawful justification and while misdirecting itself against the factual & legal aspects of the matter, refused to grant ex-parte interim injunction in order to protect the suit property till the disposal of the main suit. Serial No. 118
2 CM(M) No. 51/2026
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court vide impugned order has observed that the Court was not convinced that status quo with respect to suit property may be directed to be made without obtaining the reply from the other side and that the Court has misdirected itself not to pass any effective order, either to accept or to reject the plea for protection of the suit property at the initial stage.
3. Heard and considered.
4. The Trial Court was under obligation to decide the application based on the documents available on the file and to consider the plea of temporary injunction, even ex-parte, either to reject or accept the same, instead of deferring the same to the next date of hearing, subject to objections, so as to protect the suit property
5. In view of the pleadings and submissions urged at the bar, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order having regard to the material available with the plaint for the consideration of the interim relief.
6. Disposed of along with connected application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE Jammu 12.03.2026 Tarun/PS
Tarun Kumar Gupta 2026.03.12 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document