Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/222/2026 of FAYAZ AHMAD KHAN Vs FAYAZ AHMAD MIR on 1 July 2026
REGULAR CAUSE LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 222/2026 CM No. 3625/2026 Caveat No. 903/2026 Fayaz Ahamad Khan …Petitioner Through: Mr. Sheikh Younis, Advocate Vs. Fayaz Ahamd Mir ...Respondent Through: Mr. Gowhar Majeed Dalal, Advocate for the
Serial No. 13
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No. 222/2026
CM No. 3625/2026
Caveat No. 903/2026
Fayaz Ahamad Khan
…Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Sheikh Younis, Advocate
Vs.
Fayaz Ahamd Mir
...Respondent
Through:
Mr. Gowhar Majeed Dalal, Advocate for the caveator
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
01.07.2026
01. Mr. Gowhar Majeed, Advocate appears for the caveator. Accordingly, caveat stands discharged.
02. The petitioner Fayaz Ahamad Mir is a defendant in civil suit preferred by the respondent Fayaz Ahamd Mir seeking permanent/mandatory injunction with respect to suit shop which is said to have been in use and occupation of the respondent as a tenant of the petitioner wherefrom the respondent apprehending his eviction without adopting due course of law led himself to a cause of action for suing the petitioner. The civil suit is before the court of Sub Judge, Ganderbal. Institution of the civil suit is of 24.03.2022.
03. By virtue of order dated 19.02.2024, the court of Sub Judge, Ganderbal disposed of temporary injunction application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure-1908 restraining the petitioner from causing any interference into the suit shop and also effecting dispossession of the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit.
04. Aggrieved of said order, the petitioner as a defendant preferred the miscellaneous appeal under Order 39 rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure-1908 before the court of Additional District Judge, Ganderbal which has resulted in failure in terms of order dated 24.04.2026, against which the petitioner is now coming forward with the challenge under article 227 of the Constitution of India which is going to laid petitioner nowhere except waste his time in doing what is post is done at his end as the owner of the suit shop qua the respondent be it as a tenant or otherwise of the petitioner.
05. This Court is not inclined to grant indulgence in the matter except for one modification with respect to the basic order dated 19.02.2024, wherein the trial court of learned Sub Judge has restrained the petitioner till the final disposal of the suit. The injunctory direction instead ought to have been restraining the petitioner from disturbing the possession of the respondent qua the suit shop without adopting the due course of law so that the petitioner was not to be kept on wait till disposal of the civil suit preferred by the respondent for initiating eviction proceedings if the petitioner choses to initiate against the respondent. Accordingly, this Court modifies the order dated 19.02.2024 to this extent that the petitioner is restrained from disturbing the possession or dispossessing the respondent from the suit shop without adopting due course of law.
06. Dispose of.
07. (RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 01.07.2026 Imtiyaz
Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.07.2026 09:31