IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 02.12.2025 Pronounced on:11.12.2025 Uploaded on: 11.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full CM(M) No.185/2025 c/w CM(M) No.136/2025 MEHRAJ AHMAD GANAI AND ANR.

MST. SARA BEGUM & ORS.

…PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. A. Hanan, Advocate &

Mr. G. A. Lone, Advocate with Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate (in CM(M) No.185/2025)

Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Murfad, Advocate (in CM(M) No.136/2025)

Vs.

MST. SARA BEGUM & ORS.

MEHRAJ AHMAD GANAI AND ANR. .…RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Murfad, Advocate (in CM(M) No.185/2025)

Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. A. Hanan, Advocate &

Mr. G. A. Lone, Advocate with Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate (in CM(M) No.136/2025)

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

JUDGMENT

1) By virtue of the present judgment, the afore-titled two petitions, one filed by the appellants before the Appellate Court and the other filed by respondents before the Appellate Court, impugning order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kulgam (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Court”) are proposed to be disposed.

2) It appears that a suit came to be filed by Mst. Sara Begum (petitioner No.1 in CM(M) No.136/2025) before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Kulgam, challenging decree dated 12.10.1998 passed in the case titled Mehrajdin Ganai (minor) and another through mother Mst. Nabiza vs. Mohammad Ramzan Ganai, which pertained to land measuring 22 kanals, 8 odd marlas falling under different survey numbers situated at Village Mah Tehsil Qaimoh District Kulgam. In the said suit, the petitioners in CM(M) No.185/2025 were impleaded as contesting defendants. However, the said suit of plaintiff Sara Begum came to be dismissed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, Kulgam (for short “the trial court”) by virtue of judgment and decree dated

27.03.2018.

3) The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court came to be challenged by plaintiff Sara Begum by way of an appeal before the Appellate Court. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal, learned counsels for the parties informed the appellate court that the parties have entered into a compromise and in this regard they also produced a compromise deed before the learned Appellate Court. It was recorded by the learned Appellate Court that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the appellants have prayed that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn and, accordingly, the appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn by virtue of order dated 23-01-

2019 passed by the learned Appellate Court.

4) On 20-02-2025, the defendants in the suit, who happen to be the contesting respondents in the appeal, filed an application before the learned Appellate Court invoking provisions under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking recall of compromise deed dated 23-01-2019 on various grounds, including the grounds that the deed of compromise has not been signed by all the contesting respondents to the appeal; that the parties to the compromise never appeared before the court nor their statements were recorded by the Appellate Court; that the compromise is outcome of collusion, fraud and conspiracy; that respondent/defendant Zahoor Ahmad was minor on the date of execution of the compromise and, as such, was not in a position to execute any agreement or compromise; that after the execution of compromise, appellant/plaintiff, Sara Begum, in league with the Revenue Officers, managed illegal and fraudulent entries in respect of the suit property; that a lease deed has been executed in respect of land measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas out of the suit land by appellant/plaintiff, Sara Begum, in favour of Mohd. Ashraf Naik, and they are the in the process of installation of a petrol pump over there; that the contesting respondents/defendants are entit