SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has stayed an order passed by a Srinagar trial court restraining construction and demolition work on a disputed wall, while seeking an explanation for the failure to pronounce an order on a clarification application despite arguments having concluded more than a year earlier.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing a petition filed by Manzoor Ahmad Bawni and others, directed the Registrar Judicial to obtain a report from the court of the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, explaining why an order had not been pronounced on the application seeking clarification, even though arguments in the matter were concluded on October 3, 2025.
In an order dated October 12, 2026, the High Court observed that a prima facie case had been made out for its intervention. It also directed that the scanned record of the case be summoned from the trial court.
The court further ordered that the challenged order dated March 9, 2024, would remain stayed until the next hearing, subject to objections from the other side. However, it clarified that the trial court could continue proceedings in accordance with the law.
The matter has been listed for October 31, 2026, with notice issued to respondent Mohammad Maqbool Ganai in the main petition and the connected application.
The dispute concerns the proposed demolition and construction of a wall over an area claimed by both parties. The proceedings originated in an interim application filed alongside the respondent’s civil suit.
According to the High Court order, the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, had, on November 24, 2023, directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the nature and possession of the disputed portion. The trial court subsequently modified that arrangement through an order dated February 5, 2024.
In the February order, the trial court observed that the question of entitlement to the disputed portion could be determined only after examining the evidence. It also noted the defendants’ contention that they had obtained permission from the competent authority to undertake construction and that their share had been demarcated by the revenue authorities.
The trial court held that, if the requisite permission had been granted after proper verification, the balance of convenience would favour the defendants. It accordingly allowed defendant No. 4 to proceed with construction or demolition in the disputed area, subject to conditions.
The court required the defendant to furnish an indemnity bond before undertaking the work, undertaking that if the suit was ultimately decided in the plaintiff’s favour, 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 construction 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 withdrawn or suspended, the parties were required to maintain the status quo regarding the nature and possession of the disputed property.
However, on March 9, 2024, the trial court passed a further order after the plaintiff raised an objection that the demolition or construction being carried out by the defendants allegedly exceeded the scope of the permission granted by the competent authority.
Taking note of the contention, the trial court directed the defendants not to continue any demolition or construction work in the disputed area until the next date of hearing. It also ordered that a copy of the direction be served on the defendants through the jurisdictional Station House Officer for compliance.
The petitioners challenged the March 9 order, contending that the trial court had effectively reversed its earlier decision under the guise of clarifying it. They argued that the earlier interim application had already been disposed of and that the subsequent direction had rendered the earlier order ineffective.
The petitioners also pointed out that they had filed objections to the March 9 order and that arguments on the matter had concluded on October 3, 2025. However, according to the record placed before the High Court, no order had been pronounced on the application seeking clarification.
After hearing counsel for the petitioners and examining the record, Justice Nargal observed that the material prima facie supported their contention that the clarification application had remained undecided despite the conclusion of arguments.
The High Court further observed that, once the trial court had disposed of the interim application after considering the rights of both parties and the balance of convenience, there was prima facie no occasion to upset that order through a clarification in the manner adopted.
In view of the circumstances, the High Court sought an explanation from the trial court regarding the delay and stayed the impugned order dated March 9, 2024, pending the next hearing.
The High Court’s order is an interim direction in the proceedings. The underlying civil dispute over the disputed wall and the parties’ respective claims to the property remain subject to adjudication by the competent court.
