IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 28.11.2025 Pronounced on:05.12.2025 Uploaded on: 05.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full CM(M) No.75/2025 MOHAMMAD SHAIF BHAT ALIAS WANI & ANR.

...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. Showkat Ali Khan, Advocate.

Vs.

RAFI AHMAD BHAT ALIAS WANI AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - None.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, whereby their application seeking leave to file the written statement has been rejected.

2) It appears that respondent No.1 had filed a suit against the petitioners and the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.2 to 5 before the Court of learned 2^nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar. In the said suit, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) had sought a declaration relating to his ownership to the extent of his share in land measuring 05 kanals and 10 marlas and two residential houses situated at Mandi Bagh, District Srinagar, near Ratan Rani Hospital. He had also sought a decree for partition of the suit property by meets and bounds, with a further prayer for putting him into actual physical possession of his share in the suit property. The plaintiff had further sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioners/defendants restraining them from alienating or transferring any or whole part of the suit property.

3) The petitioners/defendants filed their written statement and also filed a counter claim. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, framed issues vide order dated 27-03-2019. Issue No. 18 was treated as preliminary issue. The same reads as under:

“18. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)”

4) Vide order dated 19.04.2022, learned 2^nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, held that the suit has not been properly valued as per the share of the plaintiff sought to be partitioned. It was further held that the relief of injunction and jurisdiction have not been valued separately. Accordingly, the plaintiff was directed to value the suit for the purposes of possession to the extent of share sought to be partitioned and surrendered in his favour as also the relief of injunction and affix the court fee within a period of two weeks, failing which the plaint was directed to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

5) On 03.08.2022, another order came to be passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, in which it was recorded that in compliance with order dated 19.04.2022, the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.1.00 crores to the extent of her share which is being sought to be partitioned and has affixed an amount of Rs.3000/ as court fee. The Court observed that since the suit has been valued at Rs.1.00 crores, as such, the said court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. Accordingly, the plaint in original was submitted to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar, and the parties were directed to appear before the said Court on 25.08.2022. The learned 2^nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, also observed that the suit is returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

6) It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, vide his order dated 25.08.2022, transferred the case to the court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar (for short “the trial court”).

7) Upon appearance of the parties before the learned trial court, the defendants/petitioners filed an application seeking permission to file a fresh written statement. The said application came to be dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 19.12.2024, by observing that even if it is assumed that the