[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Saira Malik vs Sana-Ul-Llah Sheikh on 12 February, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
124
Suppl-I
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(568/2026) in CR 4/2026
CM(569/2026).
Saira Malik.
...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Zakir Mehmood Khateeb, Advocate.
VERSUS
Sana-ul-llah Sheikh.
...Respondent(s)
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
ORDER
12.02.2026
01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
02. The petitioner- Saira Malik figures as defendant No. 5 in a civil suit
preferred by the respondent- Sana-ul-llah Sheikh before the Court of
Munsiff, Chadoora.
03. In said suit, there are five defendants with the petitioner figuring as
defendant No. 5.
04. The suit has been filed for declaration and injunction to the effect that
the respondent be declared as the lawful, exclusive, absolute owner in
possession and title holder of the suit land measuring 3 kanals 9
marlas comprising survey No. 1222 (222- Min), Khata No. 945 and
khewat No. 489 situated at Mauza Khanihama, B. K. Pora District
Budgam and for restraining perpetually the defendants from causing
any kind of interference whatsoever with the possession and ownership
of the respondent vis-à-vis the suit land.
05. The institution of the suit has taken place on 07.10.2021.
06. Accompanying the civil suit, the respondent preferred an application
for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
07. In terms of an ex-parte ad-interim order dated 07.10.2021, the Court of
Munsiff, Chadoora had first temporarily restrained all the defendants
from making or causing any sort of interference with the peaceful
possession of the suit property of the respondent.
08. The defendants No. 1 to 4 came forward with their joint written
statement as well as objections to the temporary injunction application
filed by the respondent, whereas the petitioner, being the defendant No.
5, came forward with her own written statement and also objections to
the temporary injunction application.
09. The Court of Munsiff, Chadoora, by virtue of order dated 22.11.2021
passed in Misc. Application No. 506/2021, directed the parties to the
suit to maintain status quo at the spot till the final disposal of the suit.
The status quo was also directed to be maintained with respect to the
title, nature, and possession of the suit land.
10. Aggrieved of adjudication so carried out with respect to application
under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
which adversely affected her purported position and status vis-à-vis the
suit property claimed by the petitioner to be owned and possessed by
her in her own right, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 43
rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Court of
Additional District Judge, Budgam.
11. Said appeal has come to be dismissed leaving the petitioner aggrieved to
come forward with the present petition under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to
examine the legality and validity of said two adjudications made by the
trial court as well as the appellate court, in terms whereof, the petitioner
reckons that she, being the owner in possession of the suit property, has
been put in a fix with the respondent as being the suitor free to enjoy
the benefit of the status quo being neither in possession nor in any sort
of legal relationship with the suit property.
12. Since period of (90) days is prescribed for filing a civil revision before
this Court under the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Rules, 1999 and the present revision petition has been filed beyond the
prescribed period, the petitioner through medium of application- CM No.
568/2026 is seeking condonation of delay.
13. When confronted by this Court that the impugned orders are not
amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, the learned counsel
for the petitioner makes an oral plea that the present petition be treated
as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the
purpose of exercising supervisory jurisdiction which is akin to revisional
jurisdiction aimed with the purpose of examining the legality and
validity of the orders passed by the Courts subordinate to the
jurisdiction of this Court. The plea of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is accepted. The present petition is to be treated as the
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. Issue notice to the respondent.
15. Notice in CM No. 569/2026 also.
16. Service of notice upon respondent to take place through the Tamilat
section of the Principal District Judge, Budgam.
17. Petitioner to procure dasti summons from the Registrar Judicial,
Srinagar within a period of next three days and deliver the same to the
Tamilat section of Principal District Judge, Budgam wherefrom a
process server be deputed for effecting service of summons and return
the process by next date of hearing.
18. List on 27th February, 2026.
19. In the meantime, the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar is directed to get the
scanned record of the civil suit titled "Sonaullah Sheikh Vs.
Shahnawaz Ahmad Rather and Ors." from the Court of Munsiff
Chadoora and the scanned record of Civil Misc. Appeal titled "Sahira
Malik Vs. Sanaullah Sheikh" from the Court of Additional District
Judge, Budgam.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
12.02.2026
Bisma Jan.
