Supplementary List-II Serial No. 152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM No. 7745/2025 In MCC No. 119/2018 Date of pronouncement : 12.12.2025 Uploaded on : 16.12.2025 Sneh Lata ….Petitioner Through:- Ms. Arsha Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate.

V/s Dayalbagh Radhasoami Satsang …..Respondent Through:- Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate.

\

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL)

01. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not reluctant to grant any indulgence in response to the present matter, particularly when the final arguments in the civil suit are ongoing being participated by the defendant through her counsel.

02. The petitioner came forward with this petition in year 2018 which has not reserved even a first admission hearing from this Court all along the pendency for the last seven years.

03. The petition was filed by reference to a cause of action that by virtue of order dated 19.03.2018 the trial court has closed the evidence of the defendant i.e., the petitioner and posted the case for final arguments.

04. Section 105 of the J&K Code of Civil Procedure, Svt., 1977, which is akin to section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is always aimed to save any party to a civil suit who, if prejudiced by any order said to be erroneous, defective or irregular affecting the decision of the case, is entitled to set forth the same as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal which of course means civil first appeal in the context of a decree of a civil suit and, therefore, even if in the context of the present case, order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the civil court is being reckoned by the petitioner to be erroneous, defective and irregular having the potential of affecting the final decision of the suit still no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in the event of the decree passed against her in the civil suit when in civil first appeal, the petitioner shall be all entitled to assail not only the final decree but also the intervening orders which are said to have caused prejudice to the petitioner’s case.

05. Hence, the petition-MCC No. 119/2058 is dismissed along with connected application(s), if any.

(RAHUL BHARTI)

JUDGE JAMMU

12.12.2025 Bunty Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No CM No. 7745/2025 Page 3 of 3 Bunty Kumar I attest to the accur acy and integrity of this document Jammu