S. No. 204
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CONC No. 9900004/2014
In CSA No.9900001/2014
IA No. (99001/2014
[D-18/2014])
Abdul Rashid ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate
v/s
<
Mohd. Aziz and others
't
.....Respondent (s)
Through :- Mr. Ved Raj Wazir, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Neeraj Magotra, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
22.02.2021 CONC No. 9900004/2014
1. The present application has been filed seeking condonation of 02 days delay in the presentation of the appeal. However, the report of the Registry reveals that there is a delay of 03 days in preferring the said appeal. The applicant has narrated the sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal within the period of limitation.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 03 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of, accordingly. CSA No.9900001/2014
4. The present civil 2nd appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Learned District Judge, Poonch dated 25.11.2013, by virtue of which the appeal filed 2 CONC No. 9900004/2014 In CSA No.9900001/2014 by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by Learned Sub-Judge, Surankote dated 10.05.2012 has been rejected.
5. From the perusal of the memo of the appeal along with the judgments and decrees passed by the Appellate Court as well as by the Learned Trial Court, the following substantial questions of law arose for the consideration.
a. Whether a court after recording a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of a shop as a tenant and on illegal eviction during the pendency of the suit by the defendants was restored possession by exercising powers under section 151 CPC , could a suit of permanent prohibitory injunction be rejected holding that he is not entitled to grant of decree after second dispossession by taking law in hands by the owner during trial for which he is being prosecuted for commission of offence u/s 448 RPC?
b. Whether a court is not empowered to mould relief of prohibitory injunction into that of mandatory injunction on the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case that arise for consideration in the interest of justice? c. Whether a cost of Rs.l,50,000/-(rupees one lac fifty thousand) towards counsel fee can be allowed and decreed against the plaintiff who seeks justice from the court without showing any adherence to the rule in this behalf.?
6. The appeal is admitted to hearing on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.
7. Notice.
8. Mr. Neeraj Magotra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
3 CONC No. 9900004/2014 In CSA No.9900001/2014
9. Call for the record of the trial court as well as appellate court.
10. List for final consideration on 04.05.2021.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 22.02.2021 SUNIL-I