GH AHMAD BEIGH Vs. RAJ BEGUM
LAWS(J&K)-1999-1-3
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on January 01,1999

Gh Ahmad Beigh Appellant
VERSUS
RAJ BEGUM Respondents

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.