M. K. Hanjura, J. - (1.) By the medium of this petition, filed under Section 104 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Constitution, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court in setting aside the judgement dated 31.03.2012, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Srinagar, dismissing the appeal Nos. 15 & 16 of 2012 and the order dated 17.11.2011, passed by the Court of the learned First Addl. Munsiff, Srinagar, in case titled Zahoor Ahmad and Another v. Mehra-ud-Din and the order dated 29.11.2011, passed by the Court of the learned First Subordinate Civil Judge, Srinagar in case titled Mehraj-ud-Din v. Zahoor Ahmad and Others.
(2.) The facts culled out from the petition of the petitioner are that the petitioner is in possession of entire first and 2nd floors and a room, along with an open space measuring 2ft x 9.6ft in area located in the building situated at Amira Kadal, Lal Chowk, Srinagar. The parcels of the aforesaid building is in possession of the petitioner for more than 27 years.
(3.) It is further stated by the petitioner that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, to desist him from interfering with the shop on the front side of the same building in the ground floor having the carpet area of 839 sqft, which shop was claimed to have been obtained by them on lease from J&K Central Bank Ltd. Srinagar. The said suit came to be transferred by the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, to the Court of learned First Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, who passed an order of interim injunction in the suit against the petitioner. The plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 3 &, started interference into the ,h the petitioner for more than two decades. The petitioner filed an application for vacation of the interim order passed in the suit in ex-parte on 07.06.2011 but the trial Court refused to vacate the same. The plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 3 & 4 herein have taken advantage of the order passed by the trial Court and demolished the wall, which separated the shop claimed to have been obtained on lease by them and the room which was in possession of the petitioner in the ground floor. Thus, the room was illegally annexed with the shop. The plaintiffs / respondents, it is further stated, also opened two doors of their shop towards the open space with a view to prefer a claim of user over the open space.;