Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J.
Azhar Hussain Bhat – Petitioner
versus
Mohammad Shafi Narchoor
and Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) No.316 of 2025
Decided on 24.9.2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Grant of injunction – Wherever proceedings are under CPC and forum is Civil Court, availability of a remedy under CPC, will deter High Court, not merely as a measure of self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under Constitution – High Court ought not to have entertained revision under Article 227 where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under CPC itself – Instant petition dismissed as not maintainable – Petitioner given liberty to avail remedy of appeal against impugned orders. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant to execute formal sale deed for transfer of land measuring 01 Kanals and 05 Marlas under Survey No. 501 min, 502 min, Khewat No. 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, Khata No. 248 situated at Mouza Estate Narsing Garh, Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar along with 40% share in building from bottom to top in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with agreement to sell dated 16.11.2024.
b. That the decree of damages to the tune of Rs.3.00 Crores be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and defendant be directed to pay Rs. 3.00 Crores as damages to the plaintiff for loss caused to the business and business reputation and individual reputation of plaintiff on the hands of defendant.
c. That a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant from disposing of or creating third party interest in the suit property to any person other than the plaintiff.
d. That the decree of mandatory induction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant from raising any constructional activities in the suit property till execution of formal sale deed with the plaintiff.
e. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
3. The learned Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar passed the order dated 11.12.2024, as under:-
“3. From the material made available on record, in the considered opinion of the Court at this stage, the applicant has succeeded in making out a prima facie case and balance of convenience tilts in his favour. The applicant has also made out a case for dispensation of notice as required under Order 39 rule 3 of CPC the notice is accordingly dispensed with due to the urgency involved.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances, till next date of hearing, the defendants/non-applicants are restrained from raising any construction on spot and also restrained from creating any thirdparty interest in the suit property. The other side is at liberty to file objections or to apply for modification/cancellation of this order even by or before next date of hearing.
5. Office to issue a copy of this order to the applicant so as to facilitate the applicant to serve upon the non-applicants, the copy of this order, plaint, along with all annexures through registered post and he shall submit a service affidavit showing service/compliance of the court order within five days from today. Put up on 24.12.2024.”
4. Respondent No.1 sought implementation of the order dated 11.12.2024 and 17.12.2024, passed by the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar, through SHO police station, Shergari,
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
