SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has stayed an order of a Srinagar trial court directing parties not to continue demolition or construction on a disputed property, while seeking an explanation for the delay in deciding an application whose arguments were concluded more than a year ago.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing a petition filed by Manzoor Ahmad Bawni and others, observed that a prima facie case for the court’s intervention had been made out. The High Court also questioned whether the trial court could alter its earlier interim order through a clarification application after disposing of the original application.
In an order dated October 12, the High Court directed the Registrar Judicial to seek a report from the court of the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, explaining why an order had not been pronounced on the clarification application despite arguments having concluded on October 3, 2025.
The High Court stayed the impugned order dated March 9, 2024, subject to objections from the other side and until the next date of hearing. It clarified that the trial court should continue proceedings in the matter in accordance with law. The case has been listed for October 31, 2026.
The dispute concerns construction and demolition work on a wall and an adjoining portion of property. In an earlier order dated February 5, 2024, the trial court had modified its interim directions to allow defendant No. 4 to undertake construction or demolition, subject to specified conditions.
The trial court had directed that, before proceeding with the work, the defendant must furnish an indemnity bond undertaking that, if the suit was ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants would demolish the construction, restore the previous position and compensate the plaintiff as directed by the court.
The order also stipulated that the building permission must relate to the disputed area and must not have been overturned or kept in abeyance by the competent authority. If the permission had been overturned or suspended, the parties were required to maintain the existing position regarding the nature and possession of the disputed wall.
According to the petitioners, the respondent subsequently approached the trial court seeking clarification of the earlier order. On March 9, 2024, the trial court directed the defendants not to continue demolition or construction on the disputed area until the next hearing, citing the plaintiff’s allegation that the work exceeded the scope of the permission granted by the competent authority.
The petitioners challenged the subsequent direction, arguing that the clarification proceedings had effectively reversed the earlier order and rendered it ineffective.
Justice Nargal observed that the material placed on record prima facie supported the petitioners’ contention that arguments on the clarification application had concluded on October 3, 2025, but the order remained pending.
The High Court further observed that, once the interim application had been disposed of after considering the rights of both parties and the balance of convenience, there appeared to be no occasion to disturb that order through a clarification, which the court said was not permissible under law.
The High Court issued notice to the respondent in the main petition and the connected application, directing that the necessary steps for service be completed within one week.
The observations are preliminary, and the matter remains pending before the High Court.
