IMPORTANT POINT
Permanent injunction – A person cannot have benefit of protection order from Court when he has failed to prima facie establish his right to remain in possession of property.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged order dated 17.11.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Pulwama, whereby appeal against order dated 11.03.2025 passed by learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Pulwama vacating interim injunction in a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents, has been upheld.

2. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. M.Amin Khan, Advocate, who is on caveat, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Caveat stands discharged.

3. Heard and considered.

4. It appears that the petitioner (hereinafter “the plaintiff”) has filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents (hereinafter “the defendants”) before the Court of learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Pulwama (hereinafter the trial Court). In the said suit the plaintiff has claimed that he has purchased a piece of land measuring 15/12 feet situated at Main Market Shadi Marg on right side of the Shadimarg Keller Road from defendant No.1 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for construction of shop. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.3,92,500/- to defendant No.1 on 02.12.2009 against a proper receipt, whereafter he constructed two storied shops over the suit land. It has been further pleaded that even the balance amount of Rs.57,500/- has been paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1. Thus, according to the plaintiff he is the absolute owner of suit property, where he is running his bakery business. It has been submitted that the plaintiff has invested an amount of Rs.1,82,000/- for constructing the shops but the defendants are interfering in his possession over the suit property.

5. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement, in which they have denied having sold the suit property to the plaintiff. According to the defendants, they are the exclusive owners in possession of the suit property consisting of the shopping complex of three shops on ground floor. It has been submitted that the defendants have also constructed first floor of the said shopping complex. According to the defendants, the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 in the year 2009 for renting out two shops to him and at that time he had given an advance rent of Rs.3, 92,500/- in various installments to defendant No.1. It has been submitted that the rent of the suit shops was fixed at Rs.2250/- per month and it was also agreed that after seven years it will be enhanced to 20% per month up to next seven years. It has been submitted by the defendants that till December, 2023 an amount of Rs.4,15,500/- was due on account of rent from the plaintiff and after deducting the amount of Rs.3,92,500/- the plaintiff is in arrears of rent of Rs.23,000/-, out of which he has paid an amount of Rs.5400/- leaving a balance of Rs.17,600/-.

6. It has been pleaded that when defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to pay the balance rent and to pay rent as per the market value which is Rs.4000/- per month from January 2024 onwards, he avoided to do so on one pretext or another. It has been submitted that the plaintiff has filed false and frivolous suit and that he does not have ownership rights in respect of the suit property. It has been submitted that the plaintiff is only a tenant and is not an absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property.

7. It seems that the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 dismissed the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and vacated the interim direction that had been passed in his favour. The said order came to be challenged by the plaintiff by way of an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, who vide order dated 17.11.2025, while dismissing the appeal upheld order passed by the learned trial Court.

8. The plaintiff has challenged the impugned orders passed by the Courts below on the grounds that the same are contrary to law. It has been contended that the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed from the suit property except i