Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/23/2026 of GHULAM MOHAMMAD KUMAR AND ANR Vs MST SHAMEEMA AND OTHERS on 3 February 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 23/2026 CM(198/2026) Caveat 3080/2025. GHULAM MOHAMMAD KUMAR AND ANR. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Younis Ahad, Advocate. VERSUS MST SHAMEEMA AND OTHERS. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate for caveator. CORAM:
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 23/2026 CM(198/2026)
Caveat 3080/2025.
GHULAM MOHAMMAD KUMAR AND ANR.
…Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Younis Ahad, Advocate.
VERSUS
MST SHAMEEMA AND OTHERS.
…Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate for 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
03.02.2026
01. The petitioners herein are aggrieved of an order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sub-Judge, Shopian, whereby the Civil Court has allowed an application preferred by the respondent No. 8 seeking his impleadment as a party defendant in the suit to join the originally named seven defendants so as to become defendant No. 8.
02. In the civil suit, the petitioners are seeking a declaration with respect to a sale deed dated 30th of June, 1997 concerning land measuring kanals comprised in survey No. 620/565/253 of Village Shirma, Shopian.
03. The respondent No. 8 who has been allowed to be impleaded as defendant No. 8 in the civil suit came forward with an
Suppl-I
application stating that out of the suit land, 2 kanals and 12 marlas had been purchased by his father- Hidray Nath Koul, by virtue of a sale deed dated 16th of July, 1988. It was further stated that the suit sale deed dated 30th of June, 1987 is the base title document upon which the execution of the sale deed dated 26.07.1988 in favour of the respondent No. 8 had taken place and thus, the suit for declaration preferred by the petitioners in the absence of respondent No. 8 as a party defendant was a suit without impleadment of a necessary party.
04. This Court finds no illegality committed by the Court of Sub Judge, Shopian in ordering the impleadment of the respondent No. 8 as defendant No. 8 in the civil suit, particularly when the petitioners themselves had not only originally named private individuals as defendants but have also arrayed the UT Government and a host of its officials as defendants at the first instance. In that context, the impleadment of the respondent No. 8 as defendant No. 8 is not going to take the petitioners by any surprise or cause them any prejudice.
05. Therefore, the petition is held to be misconceived and hence dismissed.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 03.02.2026 Bisma Jan.