Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/593/2025 of MST. SADIQA AND ANR. Vs PARVAIZ MAJEED BABA AND ORS. on 2 April 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 593/2025 CM(8878/2025). Mst. Sadiqa And Anr. …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Qazi Raashid Shamas, Advocate. VERSUS Parvaiz Majeed Baba And Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 593/2025 CM(8878/2025).
Mst. Sadiqa And Anr.
…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Qazi Raashid Shamas, Advocate.
VERSUS
Parvaiz Majeed Baba And Ors.
…Respondent(s)
Through:
None.
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
02.04.2026
01. The respondent No. 1- Parvaiz Majeed Baba is son of the petitioner No. 1 and brother of the petitioner No. 2.
02. The respondent No. 1 has preferred a suit for mandatory injunction in which he has named the proforma respondents 2 to 7 herein as contesting defendants with respect to whom the respondent No. 1 is seeking a decree of mandatory injunction for calling upon them to execute fresh rent deeds/ agreements with him, co-joined by the petitioners on the purported plea of being successors-in-interest of Abdul Majeed Baba who is said to be the owner of the property of six rooms known as Baba Building, Residency Road, Srinagar.
03. The petitioner No. 1 appeared in the suit and filed her written statement along with an application for rejection of plaint. 157 Suppl- I
04. Said application has been negated by the trial court of the learned 4th Additional Munsiff, Srinagar by virtue of an impugned order dated 24.09.2025.
05. It is too late for the petitioners now to come up with present petition agitating about the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 through the medium of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
06. The rejection of the plaint was sought by petitioner No. 1 only on the plea that the subject matter of the civil suit is not cognizable as the same is to be adjudicated upon by the Additional Collector or Additional District Magistrate under the new dispensation of law relating to the tenancies in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
07. The averments in the plaint do not in any manner reflect that the respondent No. 1 is intending to connect the adjudication of his civil suit by reference to the tenancy law/s in vogue, more particularly, when none of the contesting defendants have agitated any such plea, as such this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Court below but, nevertheless, this Court calls upon the trial court to allow the petitioners to seek transformation of their status from being proforma defendants to contesting defendants for enabling them to come up with the detailed written statement to meet out the case of the respondent No. 1.
08. Upon passing of an order to said effect, the petitioners to submit written statement within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order by the Court below.
09. Disposed of.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 02.04.2026 Bisma Jan.