Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/436/2026 of MOHAMMAD SHAFI KHAN AND OTHERS Vs MST RAJA TH.LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS on 25 September 2026
No. 49 Supplementary Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 436/2026 Caveat 2156/2026 MOHAMMAD SHAFI KHAN AND OTHERS ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Syed Gousia Tabasum, Advocate V/s MST RAJA
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.
Serial No. 49 Supplementary Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 436/2026
Caveat 2156/2026
MOHAMMAD SHAFI KHAN AND OTHERS
….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Syed Gousia Tabasum, Advocate
V/s
MST RAJA TH.LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS
….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Rizwan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
(ORDER) 25.09.2026
01. Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court against order dated 21.08.2026, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ganderbal [“the appellate Court”] in Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 9/2024, titled “Mst. Raja (Deceased) through legal heirs Vs. Mohammad Shafi Khan and Ors.”, whereby order dated 10.08.2024, passed by learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Ganderbal [“the trial Court”], in interim application preferred by the respondents came to be set aside. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
02. Petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order of the appellate Court on the solitary premise that at the time impugned order came to be set aside by the appellate Court, the main suit preferred by the respondents had already been dismissed by the trial Court for non-prosecution on 09.04.2025.
03. Mr. Rizwan, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the impugned order after dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, does not sustain in the eyes of law. However, Mr. Rizwan submits that respondents have already approached the trial Court for restoration of the suit to its original position and in case the suit is restored, appellate Court be directed to re-consider the appeal preferred by the respondents in accordance with law, to which learned senior counsel for the petitioners has no objection.
04. In view of the above, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.08.2026, passed by the appellate Court is set aside. However, in case the suit preferred by the respondents is restored by the trial Court, the appellate Court shall re-consider the appeal preferred by the respondents, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides.
05. Disposed of along with connected CM(s).
(RAJESH SEKHRI)
JUDGE SRINAGAR 25.09.2026 “Mohammad Yasin Dar”
Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document