JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved of and seeks setting aside of Order dated 16th September 2020, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar (for short "Appellate Court") on an application titled Maheen Azhar Kakroo v. Sadaf Niyaz Shah and another, filed by her, seeking leave to file an Appeal as an aggrieved party against Orders dated 8th September 2020 and 4th September 2020, passed by Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Srinagar (for brevity "Trial Court"), on the grounds made mention of in revision petition on hand.

2. The case set up by petitioner in instant revision petition is that she purchased a residential house along with land underneath and appurtenant measuring 03 Kanals and 06 Marlas situated at Brane, Nishat, Srinagar (hereinafter called as "suit property") by virtue of a Sale Deed, executed on 10th June 2020, and registered by Sub Registrar, East, Srinagar, on 11th June 2020 and, therefore, she in the capacity of owner of suit property has every right to protect the rights that vest in her and if any order, decree, injunction, and fiat passed qua suit property by any authority/court, affecting her rights, she has every right to appeal against the same. According to petitioner, Orders dated 8th September 2020 and 4th September 2020, passed by Trial Court, affect her rights as those orders relate to suit property and having been passed at her back and in her absence. She, therefore, went to the Appellate Court against those orders. However, Appellate Court declined to grant leave in her favour to file Appeal against Trial Court orders.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has, to cement the case set up by petitioner in revision petition on hand, contended that impugned order has been passed by Appellate Court unmindful of provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and against the legislative intent to give right to appeal to any aggrieved person and not merely to a party to the suit only. According to him, impugned order is sheer abuse of process of court and law. He has also averred that Appellate Court has totally ignored factum of the matter thereby giving freehand to respondent no. 1 to throw owner/petitioner out from suit property, which petitioner has purchased from respondent no. 2 by way of a registered document. It is asserted that Appellate Court has also refused to accept the document in the shape of a registered Sale Deed, by virtue whereof possession of suit property has been delivered by respondent No. 2 to petitioner and she is holding the same. He avers that one fails to understand Appellate Court's observation that petitioner is not aggrieved party and has dismissed her application, when the order dated 8th September 2020 passed by Trial Court, during pendency of Appeal, was brought to the notice of Appellate Court by a separate motion, which was enough to seek indulgence of Appellate Court to grant leave to petitioner, who was the only aggrieved person apparent from the face of order dated 8th September 2020, passed as an implementation of order dated 4th September 2020, against which Appeal was preferred. Impugned order is stated to have been passed in breach of audi alteram partem, as it has effect of jeopardizing right of appeal of petitioner. He also states that Executive Magistrate informed Trial Court as to ownership and possession of petitioner qua suit property consequent upon duly registered Sale Deed, but Trial Court ignored those facts, and passed orders that directly affect her rights.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has also stated that Trial Court gravely and grossly disrespected and disregarded authority of higher courts, before whom the Appeals and other petitions, were pending, by issuing orders dated 4th and 8th September 2020 and also disturbed the whole judicial system by not respecting the authority of higher courts before whom an Appeal was pending. He further states that if