Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/83/2026 of ABDUL JABAR DAR AND ANOTHER Vs ZEBA AND ANOTHER on 25 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 83/2026 CM No. 1286/2026 ABDUL JABAR DAR AND ANOTHER ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Advocate. V/s ZEBA AND ANOTHER ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti, Judge
188
Supp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No. 83/2026 CM No. 1286/2026
ABDUL JABAR DAR AND ANOTHER
….. Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Advocate.
V/s
ZEBA AND ANOTHER
….. 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
25.03.2026
1. The two respondents have initiated a civil suit against two petitioners herein before the court of Munsiff, Sumbal wherein the two respondents are asking for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the petitioners herein from interfering, directly or indirectly, in any manner or mode into the possession, use and enjoyment of the suit property which is measuring 09 Kanals, 8 Marlas and 180 Feet along with Shamilat Deh and Nambal land comprising of 08 Kanals and 06 marlas under Khasra Nos. 990/937, 938, 1138/975/947, 878, 880, 880/1 and 963/937.
P a g e | 2
2. Alongside the civil suit, the respondents filed an application for grant of temporary injunction wherein, by virtue of order dated 16.10.2024, the trial court of learned Munsiff, Sumbal came to restrain the petitioners from causing any sort of interference in any manner with respect to the suit property comprising Khasra No. 938, 1138/975/947, 878, 850, 589/1, 963/957 till further orders and disposed of the application for grant of temporary injunction.
3. The order dated 16.10.2024 has not been assailed by the petitioners herein in an appeal under Order 43 and as such, the interim injunction is operating against the petitioners in terms whereof they are restrained from causing any sort of interference in any manner with respect to the suit property.
4. In furtherance of said operating interim direction, the court of Munsiff, Sumbal, by virtue of order dated 31.12.2025, has now directed the SHO Police Station, Sumbal to provide adequate police assistance and protection to the respondents to enable them to erect P a g e | 3
fencing by affixing barbed wire around their respective share of the suit land strictly in accordance with the demarcation conducted by the Tehsildar Sumbal and in consonance with the order dated 16.10.2024 so as to ward off any breach of peace taking place at the site particularly from the end of the petitioners.
5. The learned Munsiff Sumbal has, made it clear that fencing is to be raised only to the extent of the demarcated share of the respondents and the arrangement would be purely interim in nature and to remain subject to final outcome of the suit.
6. The learned Munsiff Sumbal has taken due care of ensuring that no prejudice is caused to the parties to the suit by directing the Police Station Sumbal to provide adequate police assistance and protection to the respondents in carrying out fencing of the demarcated portion as the arrangement is meant to be only interim in nature and that too subject to final outcome of the suit.
7. If the petitioners have any grievance with respect to indulgence so shown, then the same can only be agitated P a g e | 4
before the court below which then can dispose of the concern of the petitioners on the merits of the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence and the petition is dismissed accordingly.
(Rahul Bharti)
Judge
SRINAGAR 25.03.2026 Aasif