Back
MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI
Azhar Hussain Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Shafi Narchoor – Respondent
JUDGMENT
By this petition, petitioner herein, has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the interim order dated 11.12.2024, passed by the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar in a suit titled as “Mohammed Shafi Narchoor vs Azhar Hussain Bhat,” whereby the petitioner has been restrained from raising any construction over the property, which is the subject matter of the suit and by a subsequent order dated 30.06.2025, passed by the said Court for its implementation through SHO, Police Station, Shergari. Petitioner has also sought consolidation of the suit filed by respondent No. 1, against the petitioner and the proforma respondents and the other suit, filed by petitioner against the respondent No. 1 and his son, pending adjudication before the Court of Civil Judge, Srinagar.
Factual Matrix
2. A suit for specific performance of agreement to sell came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner on 10.12.2024, before the learned trial Court, seeking the following reliefs:-
“a. That a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.11.2024, be passed in favour of th
Grant of injunction – Wherever proceedings are under CPC and forum is Civil Court, availability of a remedy under CPC, will deter High Court from exercising its Power of Superintendence.
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 3, Order 39, which mandates the court to give notice of the application for inte....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, not to correct mere errors of law or fact.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their authority, not to correct errors of law or fact.
The court clarified that to obtain a temporary injunction, a party must demonstrate irreparable harm, a favorable balance of convenience, and a prima facie case even without physical possession.
The rejection of the application for status quo was found to be just and proper, and the court emphasized the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal from order.
The discretionary nature of powers under Article 227 and the limited scope of interference by the High Court in matters where there is no patent perversity or gross failure of justice.
(1) Striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint – Once specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, is available, High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
