SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a trial court order removing three private individuals from a civil suit concerning a land and inheritance dispute in Srinagar, ruling that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against them and sought no relief from them.
Justice M A Chowdhary, while dismissing a petition filed by 74-year-old Mohammad Sultan Bhat of Dangerpora, Teilbal, Srinagar, held that there was no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court of the 3rd Civil Subordinate Judge (Forest Magistrate), Srinagar, on March 3, 2025.
The High Court pronounced its judgment on September 26, 2026, in CM (M) No. 363/2025, along with the connected application.
The petitioner had challenged the trial court’s decision to strike out the names of three private respondents from the array of defendants under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The trial court had taken the view that neither a cause of action against them nor any relief against them had been disclosed in the plaint.
Bhat had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking interference with the order.
The dispute has its origins in an inheritance matter involving the petitioner’s father’s estate and subsequent proceedings before revenue authorities. According to the petitioner’s pleadings, his father, Abdul Ahad Bhat, died in 1965, following which the estate devolved upon his two sons, Mohammad Sultan Bhat and Ghulam Qadir Bhat, through Mutation No. 964, entered in the revenue records on July 12, 1967.
The petitioner stated that the mutation excluded his two sisters, Ateeqa and Nabla, who subsequently became involved in proceedings concerning their inheritance rights.
In 2015, Ateeqa challenged the inheritance mutation before the Joint Financial Commissioner. On December 26, 2017, the Financial Commissioner set aside Mutation No. 964 and directed the Tehsildar concerned to attest a fresh mutation in accordance with Muslim Personal Law and after following the prescribed procedure.
The petitioner and his co-owners challenged that order before the High Court in OWP No. 118/2018. During those proceedings, Ateeqa and Nabla reportedly informed the court that the parties had reached a compromise under which Ateeqa had received her share in cash, while Nabla had been allotted one kanal and one marla of land under Khasra No. 745 in Teilbal.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition as settled on March 20, 2018. Subsequently, the Tehsildar, North (Hazratbal), recorded statements of the two sisters on May 12, 2018, to ascertain the validity of the compromise, according to the petitioner’s account.
Bhat alleged that the revenue proceedings were not closed despite the compromise and that the Tehsildar passed an order on March 5, 2020, which adversely affected his interests. He further alleged that a private respondent subsequently approached the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, claiming that his mother’s share in the ancestral property had not been given to her.
According to the petitioner, the application was referred to the Tehsildar, North (Hazratbal), and subsequently to the Naib Tehsildar concerned for necessary action. He alleged that the revenue authorities were attempting to compel him and his nephew to surrender possession of their land despite the earlier compromise and pending civil litigation.
The petitioner subsequently instituted another civil suit seeking a declaration that the Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar had no authority to pressure him into relinquishing possession and ownership of the disputed property, along with a permanent prohibitory injunction.
The suit also named the three private individuals as defendants. They filed separate applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that no cause of action had been disclosed against them and no relief had been sought against them.
The trial court declined to reject the plaint in part, observing that such relief could not be granted only against selected defendants. However, it exercised its powers under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to remove the three private respondents from the suit.
Before the High Court, Bhat argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate the relevant pleadings and the role allegedly played by the private respondents in prompting the revenue authorities to initiate proceedings against him. He contended that the provisions governing the joinder of parties had not been properly considered before their names were struck off.
Justice Chowdhary examined the scope of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which empowers a court to remove an improperly joined party or add a person whose presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in a suit.
The court observed that a person may be joined as a defendant even where no specific relief is claimed against them, provided their presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the issues involved.
However, examining the plaint in the present case, the High Court found that no cause of action had been pleaded against the private respondents and no relief had been claimed against them. It also noted that the proceedings before the revenue authorities could be decided effectively in their absence.
The court further observed that the petitioner had stated in his pleadings that the Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar were proceeding in accordance with the directions of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.
In these circumstances, Justice Chowdhary held that the private respondents could not be compelled to remain parties to a suit in which no cause of action had accrued against them and no relief was sought against them.
Finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s decision, the High Court upheld the order dated March 3, 2025, and dismissed the petition along with the connected application. Any subsisting interim directions were also vacated.
