##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR FAO No. 20/2026 Reserved on: 12.10.2026 Pronounced on: 29.10.2026 Uploaded on: 29.10.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: FULL Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi ...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

S/o Mohd Rajab Dhobi, Proprietor, A-One Dry Cleaners, R/o Guzarbal Chattabal, Srinagar.

Age- 70 years Through: - Mr. Adil Aismi, Advocate v/s Abdul Hamid Malla ...Respondent(s)

S/o Late Ghulam Qadir Mall, R/o Guzarbal Chattabal, Srinagar Through:- Mr. Zahoor Ahmad Shah, Advocate with Mr. Sibghatullah Shah, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in a civil suit titled “Abdul Hamid Malla v. Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi”, whereby the appellant-defendant has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 56,250/- towards alleged arrears of rent and to continue depositing occupational charges at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court has further granted liberty to the respondent-plaintiff to seek execution of the order in the event of default.

2. Before adverting to the controversy involved in the present appeal, it would be appropriate to notice that the respondent-landlord has instituted two separate suits for ejectment, possession and mesne profits against two different tenants. The first, being O/S No. 2921/2025, titled “Abdul Hamid Malla v. Mushtaq Ahmed Zarkab”, and the second, being O/S No. 2922/2025, titled “Abdul Hamid Malla v. Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi”, are pending adjudication before the same Trial Court. In both suits, substantially similar interlocutory directions requiring payment of arrears and occupational charges came to be issued.

3. The order passed in O/S No. 2921/2025 was challenged by the defendant therein through FAO No. 19/2026. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 08.07.2026, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that the order under challenge did not fall within the category of appealable orders contemplated by Sections 96 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with the relevant provisions governing appeals. While declining to entertain the appeal, the Coordinate Bench expressly reserved liberty to the aggrieved tenant to avail of an appropriate remedy, including invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The appellant in the present case has assailed the order of the Trial Court principally on the ground that the direction to deposit alleged arrears and pay occupational charges is arbitrary, legally unsustainable and beyond the jurisdiction exercisable by the Trial Court at an interlocutory stage. It is contended that the Trial Court has, in effect, granted a substantial part of the final relief claimed in the suit without recording evidence or adjudicating the disputed questions concerning the relationship between the parties, the alleged termination of tenancy, the agreed rate of rent and the respondent's entitlement to mesne profits.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in FAO No. 19/2026 does not govern the maintainability of the present appeal. According to learned counsel, the order impugned herein is, in substance and effect, one referable to Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC or, alternatively, to the principles underlying Rules 1 and 2 thereof and, consequently, is appealable under Section 104 read with Order XLIII CPC. It is submitted that the mere omission of the Trial Court to specify the provision of law under which the impugned direction was issued cannot determine the true legal character of the order or defeat a statutory right of appeal, where such right otherwise exists. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment of the Coordinate Bench does not operate as res judicata aga