S. No.77

Suppl.1 List

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CM(M) No.563/2025

CMNo.8481/2025

Date of pronouncement:17.12.2025

Uploaded on: 19.12.2025

MOHAMMAD ASHRAF PEERZADA AND ANR.

…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr.G.M.Shah, Advocate.

V/s

MEHRAJ UD DIN PEER AND ORS.

… ..Respondent(s)

Through : None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT(Oral)

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 03.12.2025 passed by learned Munsiff Dangiwacha whereby their application

under Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Heard and considered.

3. It appears that respondents 1 to 10 (hereinafter the plaintiffs) have filed a suit inter alia against the petitioners (hereinafter the defendants) before the Court of learned Munsiff Dangiwacha (hereinafter the trial Court). In the said suit the plaintiffs have challenged consent decree dated 03.01.1992 passed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest namely Gh.Rasool Peerzada in the suit titled Gh.Rasool Peerzada vs.Mohmmmad Ishaq Peerzada. In the

said suit the petitioners herein have been impleaded as defendants No.2 and 3.

4. It also appears that the petitioners alongwith defendants 3 to 7 filed an application before the learned trial Court under Section 151 of CPC, seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds of fraud, abuse of process and res judicata. It also appears that the petitioners had previously filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 08.05.2010 before the learned trial Court on the very same grounds, which were made the basis of their application under Section 151 of CPC. The earlier application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.08.2013. The fresh application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners and co-defendants has been dismissed by learned trial Court on the ground that principles of res judicata do not permit the petitioners to agitate the same issues which have been decided on merits by the said Court at the earlier stage of proceedings.

5. No exception can be taken to the legal position that has been propounded by the learned trial Court in its well reasoned order dated 03.12.2025 . It is a settled law that principles of res judicata apply not only to separate suits decided involving similar issues, but the said principles apply with equal force to different stages of the same suit. This position of law has been well settled by this Court in a catena of judgments as also by the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court. One of such judgments has been relied upon by learned trial Court which has been delivered by the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi (1960) 3 SCR 590.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that after passing of the impugned order, the learned trial Court has passed another order on 08.12.2025, whereby written statement filed by the petitioners has been struck off the record. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioners through the medium of present petition. Therefore, it will not be open to this Court to go into the legality of said order in the present petition.

7. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, as the same neither suffers from any illegality nor does it involve any impropriety on the part of the trial Court.

8. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.

(SANJAY DHAR)

JUDGE SRINAGAR

17.12.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this do cument every page at bottom left side

19.12.2025 11:49