The main legal point established in the judgment is the understanding of the legislative scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 94, Order 39 & 43.

JUDGMENT

Rahul Bharti, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Physicist Martin Fischer's quote 'Conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking' nearly explains the thinking effort on the part of the Principal District Judge, Kupwara's decision in holding the appeal of the petitioners against a temporary injunction order of the civil court as not maintainable on a premise that section 104 read with Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not bear mention of an order passed under section 94 (c) and (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as being appealable. In rushing to reach said conclusion to knockdown the appeal, the Principal District Judge, Kupwara made text surfing of section 94, section 104 and Order 39 & 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Thus, the adjudication of the present petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, perforce invites this court to delve into the understanding of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the context of its sections and the first schedule to come to hold that the Court of Principal District Judge Kupwara erred very seriously in choking the very remedy of appeal of the petitioners against the impugned order.

4. Following the dictum facts first law next, the needful mention of the facts of the case bearing the controversy in reference is that the respondent no. 5-Mst. Amina Begum has come to maintain a civil suit against the petitioners and others on the file of the court of Sub-Judge, Handwara. The suit is for declaration, partition, possession and injunction with respect to estate of the parties' predecessor-in-interest late Mohd. Yaqoob Khan comprising of land measuring 76 kanals situated at village Ashpora, tehsil Handwara and 102 kanals of land situated in tehsil Qaziabad. In the suit there are fourteen defendants. The petitioners are eight in numbers figuring in the said array of fourteen defendants. In this civil suit, in terms of an interim order dated 28-06-2019, the trial court has put in place an interim injunctory direction to the following effect, 'whereby the defendants have been directed not to create third party interest in the suit property in any form or manner till filing of the detailed written statement in the main suit and objection in the application for temporary injunction'.

5. There is a counter civil suit filed before the same very trial court of Sub Judge Handwara by the petitioners herein against said respondent no. 5-Mst. Amina Begum pertaining to a property measuring 10.11 kanals in survey number 50 min situated in village Ashpora, tehsil Kralgund. In this counter civil suit, there is operating an injunctory direction as well in terms of an order dated 12/10/2020 which is reproduced herein next 'whereby the parties of the suit have been directed to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the above mentioned suit land as existing today subject to objections from other side'.

6. Both the said two civil suits have come to be clubbed together vide an order dated 14/11/2019 by the trial court of Sub Judge Handwara and the ad interim ex parte injunctory directions in terms of above mentioned two orders are said to be still in effect as the applications in which the same have come to be passed are still pending adjudication.

7. Amidst this situation, the respondent no. 5, being the plaintiff in her suit, came to file another application on 20/06/2020 on file no. 171/Misc. titled 'Mst. Amina Begum Vs Bashir Ahmad Khan & Ors' before the trial court alleging that with respect to her possession qua 10.11 kanals piece of land under survey number 50, which is forming part of the suit property in both the civil suits, the petitioners are causing interference and damaging fruit bearing trees thereupon by use of muscle power and for that need to be restrained from causing any type of interference. This application of the respondent no. 5 came bearing reference as being filed unde