GH AHMAD BEIGH Vs. RAJ BEGUM
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Gh Ahmad Beigh
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition and injunction before sub Judge CJM Srinagar. Along -side an application for interim relief was
also filed. The trial court after notice invited objections.
(2.) AFTER considering the objections and hearing the parties the trial court on 7.9.1998 granted an interim relief temporarily restraining
the other defendants/petitioners 1 to 7 (respondents 5 to 8 before this
court) from alienating and making any construction on the suit land till
the final disposal of the suit, after the trial court prima facie found
that the plaintiffs as co -sharers had title and right to part of the suit
joint undivided land. Against this order an appeal was carried to the
Court of District Judge Srinagar. Learned District Judge after examining
the matter confirmed the order of the trial court. The court found that
the order passed in exercise of discretion is within the para -meters of
law and the question touching the partition deed and other connected
matters is a matter to be decided on trial that too on evidence. As at
present the appellate court also found prima facie a case made out for
issuing the interim restraint order and confirmed the order.
(3.) ON hearing the counsel for the parties and upon consideration, it is seen that the impugned restraint order which has been passed with
in ambit of law laid down by order 39 of CPC, does not suffer from any
error of law or jurisdiction. The application of law to the facts of the
case by the trial court appears sound. Equally the District Judge has
considered well the application of legal principles to the case. The main
features of the case have been focused on and norms/guideline laid down
by case law, have been astutely applied to the fact situation of this
case. It does not seem to be a case of erroneous exercise of jurisdiction
or failure of jurisdiction or a case of exercise of jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity. No interference by the
revisional Court is merited: As in this case no or of fact or law or
erroneous consideration of material and documents touching the
jurisdiction or exercise thereof with any illegality of material
irregularity is noted, this court would not interfere in the matters.
In the result revision petition is dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.