ORDER

1. The petitioners, by way of the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam, whereby the Tehsildar, Budgam has been directed to implement order dated 04.06.2025, besides seeking other reliefs.

2. During the course of hearing, Mr. G.A. Lone, learned counsel, along with Ms. Fiza, appearing for the caveators/respondents, brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners had already filed an application before the same Court, i.e., the Court of Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam, seeking that the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 be kept in abeyance. It was further submitted that the said Court, vide order dated 06.04.2026, after hearing both parties, directed that the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 shall not be executed by the Tehsildar, Budgam till further orders. It was also directed that the non-applicant/respondents herein shall not proceed with its execution till next date of hearing. A copy of the said order dated 06.04.2026 has been furnished to this court which has been taken on record.

3. Mr. G.A. Lone, learned counsel, further argued that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the clarification of an earlier order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CM(M) 481/2025 titled as Gh. Mohammad Shiekh v/s Gulzar Ahmad Shiekh and ors., which petition has already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is contended that this material fact has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioners with a view to mislead this Court and get an interim relief.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by Mr. G.A. Lone, learned counsel for the caveators, that the instant petition is an attempt to mislead this Court and falls within the realm of abuse of the process of the Court, as the petitioners have already availed the remedy by filing an application before the Court of Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam, which court has taken cognizance and passed a detailed order dated 06.04.2026. By virtue of the said order, it has been specifically directed that the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 shall not be executed by the Tehsildar, Budgam, until further orders, and the non-applicant respondents herein have been restrained from proceeding with its execution until the next date of hearing.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had already approached the Court of Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam by filing an application seeking suspension of the said order dated 24.03.2026. The Learned trial Court, upon hearing both sides, has already passed an order dated 06.04.2026, whereby, the operation and execution of the impugned order has already been stayed. Thus, the grievance projected in the present petition already stands redressed by the competent court.

7. In view of the aforesaid position, this court of considered view that once, the execution of the impugned order already stood stayed by the Court concerned, there was no occasion for the petitioners to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the same order. The filing of the present petition, therefore, appears to be wholly unnecessary and misconceived.

8. Further, it is evident that the petitioners have suppressed material facts, including the passing of aforesaid order dated 06.04.2026 as well as the earlier writ petition mentioned supra filed before this Court, which has a direct bearing on the present matter. Such suppression amounts to an attempt to mislead this Court.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled The Auroville Foundation Vs Natasha Storey reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 556, has authoritatively held that:

“9. I