Srinagar, Oct 13: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has put on hold a Srinagar Magistrate court’s order restraining a construction over a portion of land here, even as it sought explanation over the delay in pronouncing a decision on a related application.
Hearing a plea by Manzoor Ahmad Bawni and others, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal directed the Registrar Judicial Srinagar Wing to obtain a report from the court of the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar as to why an order had not been pronounced on an application seeking a clarification despite arguments having concluded on October 3 last year.
The bench also asked the Registrar Judicial to summon the scanned record of the case from the trial court and issued notice to the respondent, Muhammad Maqbool Ganai, in the main petition and the connected application.
The dispute relates to the demolition of a wall and proposed construction over a contested portion of property at Soura Srinagar.
Bwani and others have challenged a trial court’s order dated March 9, 2024, which directed them not to continue demolition or construction over the disputed area until the next date of hearing. The order had been passed after the plaintiff alleged that the ongoing work exceeded the permission granted by the competent authority.
While petitioners contended that the trial court had earlier, on February 5, 2024, modified its interim directions and permitted construction subject to the filing of an indemnity bond, they said that under the earlier order the defendants were required to demolish the construction, restore the previous position and compensate the plaintiff if the suit was eventually decided in his favour.
The subsequent order, passed in the guise of a clarification, effectively reversed the earlier decision and was not permissible under law, they argued.
In response to the submissions and the record, the bench observed that a prima facie case had been made out for the court’s intervention. Moreover, it held that arguments on the clarification application had concluded on October 3, 2025, but the trial court had yet to pronounce its order.
The court also observed, prima facie, that once the interim application had been disposed of after considering the rights of both parties and the balance of convenience, there was no occasion to upset that order through a clarification in the manner alleged.
The court ordered that the impugned order dated March 9, 2024, shall remain stayed, subject to objections from the other side, until the next date. However, it permitted the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The court listed the case for further consideration on October 31.
About The Author
