Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mst.Zoona Begum vs Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh And Ors on 22 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
S. No.76
Suppl. List
,,, HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
RP No.43 of 2025
Mst.Zoona Begum
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr.Mr.R.A.Jan, Sr.Advocate with
Ms.Humaira Sajad and Mr.Adil Mushtaq, Advocates
V/s
Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh and Ors
... ..Respondent(s)
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
22.05.2025
1. The petitioner has sought review of order dated
06.05.2025 passed by this Court, whereby petition under Article
227 of the Constitution challenging order dated 12.04.2025
passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sogam Kupwara
has been decided.
2. Heard and considered.
3. The petitioner had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India for
challenging order dated 12.04.2025 passed by learned Civil
Judge, Jr.Division, Sogam Kupwara, whereby application of
respondent No.2 seeking permission to raise construction on a
portion of the suit property was allowed. The said petition came
to be disposed of by this Court in terms of judgment under review
in the following manner:-
(I) The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the
learned trial court seeking disposal of her interim
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC on its
merits.
(II) It shall be open to the petitioner to urge before
the learned trial court to enlarge the scope of order of
status quo so as to cover the activity regarding
construction on the suit property at the time of passing
of final order in the application under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 CPC and if such a prayer is made by the
petitioner/plaintiff before the learned trial court, the
same shall be considered by the said court in
accordance with law after hearing both the parties and
without getting influenced by the observations made
by the said court in the impugned order dated
12.04.2025.
4. While passing the aforesaid directions, this Court after
noticing the covenant of ex parte interim order dated 29.10.2022
passed by learned trial court in an application under Order 39 rule
1 and 2 of CPC filed by the respondents, concluded that the status
quo order passed by learned trial court is in respect of possession
of the suit property only and that there is no restraint on the
parties to raise construction on the portions of property which are
in their respective possession. On this ground this Court came to
the conclusion that there were no fetters placed upon the
RP No.43/2025 2|P a g e
respondents by the learned trial Court to raise construction on
portion of the suit property which is in his possession.
5. The petitioner has sought review of the impugned
judgment on the grounds that this Court has erroneously
interpreted order of status quo dated 29.10.2022 passed by the
trial court. It has been claimed that as per the ratio laid down by
the Supreme Court in the cases reported in 1987 SCC (Supp) 394
and 1994 (2) SCC 266 expression "status quo" would mean
existing state of things at any given point of time. Thus,
according to the review petitioner the interpretation given by this
Court to the expression "status quo" is contrary to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, which amounts to an error apparent
on the face of record. It has also been contended that because
this Court has not set aside order dated 12.04.2025 passed by
learned trial Court, therefore, the petitioner has been rendered
without any remedy, inasmuch as, the trial court while deciding
interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC would
be bound by the observations of the said Court recorded in order
dated 12.04.2025.
6. So far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned,
there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that "status
quo" means "existing state of things obtaining on spot", but when
RP No.43/2025 3|P a g e
the order of status quo is qualified by the Court passing such
order, the things become different. In the instant case learned
trial court, while passing interim order of status quo on
29.10.2022 has qualified it by providing that the parties shall
maintain status quo on spot viz. possession, meaning thereby that
order of status quo is only with respect to the possession of the
property. It is further provided in the order that party in
possession shall not be debarred from pursuing agricultural
activities on spot. Thus, the order of status quo has been
qualified and clarified by the learned trial court and it does not
cover the activity of raising construction on spot. Therefore,
there is no contradiction between the interpretation of "status
quo" adopted by this Court and the interpretation of said
expression adopted by the Supreme Court in its various
judgments. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without
7. Regarding the 2nd contention of the petitioner, it is correct
that order dated 12.04.2025 has not been set aside by this Court
by virtue of the judgment under review, but it has been clearly
provided in the said judgment that learned trial court while
considering the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 rule 1
and 2 of CPC shall not get influenced by the observations made
RP No.43/2025 4|P a g e
by the said court on 12.04.2025. Thus takes care of apprehension
of the petitioner.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to
review the judgment dated 06.05.2025. The petition lacks merit
and is dismissed accordingly.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
22.05.2025
Sarveeda Nissar
1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
RP No.43/2025 5|P a g e
every page at bottom left side
