SRINAGAR: The Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar, has directed a trial court to decide a petition seeking a temporary injunction in a property dispute within one week, while ordering both parties to maintain status quo on the disputed property until a final decision on the application.
The court also directed the defendants to complete their pleadings by filing a written statement before the trial court and cautioned both sides against unnecessarily seeking police intervention until the injunction petition is decided.
The directions were passed by Additional District Judge Farooq Ahmad Bhat on November 6 while disposing of a civil appeal filed by Parveena Rafiq Khan and Riffu Suhail Khan against an order passed by the Court of 1st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, in a civil suit titled Faizan Fayaz Khan versus Riffu Suhail Khan and Another.
The appellants had challenged the trial court’s order, raising several objections, including the transfer of the presiding officer who had passed the impugned order, the admissibility of a partnership deed relied upon by the plaintiff and the question of possession of the disputed property.
They contended that the partnership deed relied upon by the plaintiff had not been registered under the Registration Act and, therefore, could not be relied upon or treated as having legal sanctity. They also disputed the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property.
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the appellate court observed that the objections raised by the appellants involved questions of fact and that the validity of the disputed document would have to be examined by the trial court in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.
The court also took note of the fact that a new presiding officer had taken charge of the Court of 1st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar.
Addressing the dispute over possession, the court observed that the question of who was presently in possession of the property had to be determined in accordance with the pleadings submitted by the parties.
It noted that the defendants had not filed their written statement and emphasised the need for them to complete their pleadings before the trial court proceeded further.
The appellate court held that the trial court should thereafter decide the application seeking temporary injunction after considering all relevant circumstances surrounding the dispute.
It further observed that the order under challenge was subject to modification or vacation at the instance of the opposite party.
“Afterwards, the trial court is required to dispose of the petition for issuance of temporary injunction by taking into account all the relevant circumstances engulfing the matter in controversy,” the court observed.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the temporary injunction application within one week from November 6.
The court further directed the counsel for the appellants to file the requisite pleadings before the trial court. In the meantime, both parties were ordered to maintain status quo at the site until the application for temporary injunction is finally decided.
It also directed that police intervention should not be sought unnecessarily during the pendency of the proceedings.
The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on November 10, 2026, while a copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the trial court for information and compliance.
Advocate Sameer ul Hameed appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Faiz ul Fayaz represented the respondent, Faizan Fayaz Khan.
The order was pronounced on November 6, 2026.
