Serial No. 71 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 108/2026 CM No. 1764/2026 Caveat No. 0418/2026 Ghulam Mohi ud Din Bhat and Ors. …Petitioner(s)

Through: ^{Mr. Jehangir Rehbar, Advocate} Vs.

Ghulam Ahmad Ganie and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Aswad R. Attar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE.

ORDER

10.04.2026

01. Caveat stands discharged.

02. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of the fact that petitioners have filed a caveat petition under Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, [“trial court”] on 20th June, 2025, which was registered and accepted by the learned trial court on the same date, yet the learned trial court has recorded a finding that the caveat petition was not filed prior to the filing of suit, giving no right to the caveator to argue the matter at the time of granting interim relief to the petitioner herein and plaintiff therein. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the court of Additional District Judge, Anantnag, [“appellate court] against the impugned order dated 23^rd June, 2025 passed by the Sub Judge/ Special Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag, [“trial court”], whereby the learned appellate court has recorded a finding that no caveat petition was found to be available on record on the date when the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2025 came to be passed. The learned appellate court has even gone to the extent of observing that no office report indicating that any caveat has been filed or brought to the notice of the trial court at the relevant time.

03. In addition, it has been observed by the learned appellate court that although the appellants have placed on file a copy of the caveat, but the same is neither signed nor does it bear any filing endorsement, diary number, seal, or registration particulars of the concerned court nor there is any receipt. The learned appellate court after recording the aforesaid finding, has observed that in absence of any proof of due presentation and registration of the caveat before the competent court, the appellants cannot derive any benefit therefrom. The learned appellate court further observed that in the absence of a caveat forming part of the record of the concerned court, the learned trial court cannot be faulted for having proceeded to consider the application for ad-interim relief in the ordinary course, as the statutory obligation under Section 148-A(3) CPC arises only when a caveat is duly filed and is available on record before the court dealing such application and mere assertion of filing a caveat elsewhere, without it being reflected in the record of the court which passed the order, cannot ipso facto invalidate the impugned order. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned appellate court upheld the order of the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners came forward with the institution of instant petition, invoking the power of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that both the courts have failed to appreciate the material available on record in its proper perspective and have returned findings which are perverse, arbitrary and not sustainable in law, therefore, deserve to be set aside. He has taken a categorical stand that petitioners have duly filed a caveat under Section 148 A CPC on 20th June, 2025, and thereby creating a statutory obligation upon the court to issue notice to the cavetor before passing any interim order and despite the existence of the caveat no notice was issued to the petitioners and, accordingly, an ex-parte injunction was granted in clear violation of the statutory mandate and feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the learned appellate court was also concurrent with the find