S. No.109

Supplementary

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CM(M)No.285/2022

Mohammad Iqbal Wani & Ors

…. Petitioner(s)

Through:Mr.S.H.Thakur, Advocate

V/s

Khursheed Ahmad Malik and Ors

…. Respondent(s)

Through:None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

14.12.2022

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 05.09.2022, passed by

learned Sub Judge, Shopian, whereby application of one Ghulam

Qadir Malik S/o Abdul Jabbar Malik R/o Kanjiullar Shopian under

Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, for impleading him as party defendant to the

suit filed by the petitioners, has been allowed.

2. It appears that the petitioners have initially filed a suit before the trial

Court against all the respondents herein seeking a declaration to

declare petitioner No.1 to be the owner in possession of land

measuring 3 kanals falling under survey No.88 situated at village

Kanjiullar Shopian and petitioner No.2 to be the owner in possession

of land measuring 01 kanal under survey No.57 situated at village

Aadijan Shopian. Besides this, certain other reliefs were also sought

which include a decree for formal partition alongwith separate

possession in favour of petitioners 3 and 4 in respect of land falling

under khasra Nos. 134, 88, 08, 223, 97, 58 and 128 situated at

2

C M(M) No.285/2022

Kanjiullar Shopian. However, lateron name of the applicant Ghulam

Qadir Malik, who figured as defendant No.2 was deleted from the

array of the parties. It appears that some compromise took place

between the parties for declaring the plaintiffs and the defendants as

owners of the land. However, defendant/applicant Ghulam Qadir

Malik had been deleted from the array of the parties, by that time.

3. On 22.07.2020 applicant Ghulam Qadir Malik made an application

before the trial Court seeking his impleadment as defendant to the suit

on the ground that the compromise that had been arrived at between

the parties is adversely affecting his rights in the suit property. The

said application was allowed by learned trial Court vide the impugned

order and applicant Ghulam Qadir Malik was impleaded as party

defendant to the main suit.

4. The petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order of the trial Court

on the grounds that the parties to the suit have agreed to set at rest

their differences and that they have settled the subject matter of the

suit. It is contended that because of impleadment of applicant Ghulam

Qadir Malik as party defendant, the settlement is sought to be set at

naught. It has been also contended that applicant Ghulam Qadir

Malik had left his parents and the village long back and that his

interests have been protected in the settlement made by the parties

through mediation. It has also been submitted that even if the decree

is passed pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, the

same can be challenged by applicant Ghulam Qadir Malik by way of a

separate suit.

3

C M(M) No.285/2022

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record

of the case.

6. It is not in dispute that applicant Ghulam Qadir Malik was impleaded

as defendant No.2 to the suit but lateron he was deleted from the array

of the parties. In the suit one of the reliefs claimed is that defendants

No. 1 to 6, which includes the applicant Ghulam Qadir Malik too, is a

direction to them to execute and register sale deed of land measuring

03 kanals under survey No.88 situated at village Kanjiullar Shopian in

favour of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 with a further direction that they

should perform their respective contracts so as to put plaintiff Nos. 1

and 2 in full fledged ownership of the aforesaid land. Another claim in

the original plaint is that defendants including Ghulam Qadir Malik

should be permanently restrained from causing any sort of

interfer