Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/250/2026 of ABDUL KARIM SHEIKH Vs COMMISSIONER SECRETARY AND OTHERS (POWER DEVELOPMENT) on 3 July 2026
No. 110 SUPPLEMENTARY CAUSE LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 250/2026 CM No. 3849/2026 Abdul Karim Sheikh and Others …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sofi Manzoor, Advocate Vs. Commissioner Secretary PDD to Govt. of J&K Civil Secretariate at
Serial No. 110
SUPPLEMENTARY CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No. 250/2026
CM No. 3849/2026
Abdul Karim Sheikh and Others
…Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Sofi Manzoor, Advocate
Vs.
Commissioner Secretary PDD to Govt. of J&K
Civil Secretariate at Jammu/Srinagar and Others
...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, 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
03.07.2026
01. The petitioners chose to name eighteen defendants in a civil suit with cause title of the plaint reading as a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction but ending with prayer for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to property of land measuring 9.18 kanals in survey No. 144 and land measuring 7.17 kanals in survey No. 145 at village Sunergund District Budgam, whereupon the petitioners as plaintiffs are said to have planted walnut trees drawing income therefrom.
02. The construction of 33KV Power Transmission Line from Ichgam to Kremshore is said to have given a purported cause of action for the petitioners, as plaintiffs, to sue eighteen defendants.
03. The petitioners are staking claim for compensation for 12 walnut trees and therefore, the declaration to said effect, whereas, permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining 18 defendants from causing any interference with respect to the suit property.
04. The civil suit of the petitioners came to be replied by the defendants 12 to 18, all of whom are private defendants.
05. The petitioners came forward with an application seeking amendment of the suit which application came to be dismissed in terms of order dated 24.12.2025 against which a review was sought from the court of Sub Judge, Budgam which has suffered rejection in terms of order dated 18.05.2026.
06. It is against aforesaid two outcome in terms of order dated 24.12.2025 and 18.05.2026 that the petitioners are intending this Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India to upset the exercise of discretion on the part of the learned Sub Judge, Budgam.
07. The very fact that after having suffered first order dated 24.12.2025 of rejection of their application for amendment of the plaint, seeking of review by the petitioners from the court below is an act pointing to the fact that petitioners were more keen to over stretch litigation on one pretext to another, otherwise this Court is failing to understand as to how come an order of a civil court rejecting an application for amendment of pleadings can generate an application for seeking review thereof at the instance of the party to litigation seeking amendment as by that taken even adverse order passed in review should also have been subjected to review by the petitioners instead of coming to this Court.
08. When this Court peruses the application so filed by the petitioners invoking order VI rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code-1908, the application found to be is longer than the plaint itself, meaning thereby a flood of assertions were intended to be incorporate by the petitioners in their plaint without disclosing in the application that how come at first instance at the time of filing of civil suit the petitioners were at failure and loss to come forward with the knowledge and disclosure of the purported facts intended to be brought in original plaint through mode of amendment.
09. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality committed by the court of Sub Judge, Budgam in refusing the amendment plea and prayer and the review sought for by the petitioners and therefore, this Court does not entertain this petition. Dismissed along with connected CM.
10. A copy of this order be forwarded to Sub Judge, Budgam for being taken on record.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 03.07.2026 Imtiyaz Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 15.07.2026 09:28