Disposed

Mohammad Ashraf Lone v. Ishtiaq Ahmad Mir

J&K HC19 Nov 2025CM(M)/508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 challenged an ex-parte interim injunction order passed by the Munsiff in a prohibitory injunction suit. The High Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal or objection existed, and disposed of it with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to avail appropriate alternative remedy; no substantive relief granted.

Mohammad Ashraf Lone Vs Ishtiaq Ahmad Mir — Property and Title | J&K HC (2025)

¶1

Serial No. 88 Suppl Cause List.

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CM (M) No. 508/2025 CM No. 7646/2025.

¶4

MOHAMMAD ASHRAF LONE

¶5

…Petitioner (s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Saleem Gul, Advocate.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

ISHTIYAQ AHMAD MIR.

Through:

…Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

19-11-2025

¶15

The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order dated 1^st of November, 2025, passed by the Learned Munsiff, Baramulla, in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.

¶16

It appears that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the petitioner and the co-defendant before the trial court, in which an ex-parte interim order dated 1^st of November, 2025, has been passed, whereby the petitioner-defendant has been temporarily restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property.

¶17

The order impugned is appealable in nature. Apart this, the said order has been passed in ex-parte and is subject to objections from the other side. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant has two options, either he can file an appeal against the said order, or he has the option of filing written statement/objections and seeking vacation of the said interim order. Instead of availing these remedies,

¶18

the petitioner has rushed to this Court by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

It is a settled position of law that where a litigant has an alternative and efficacious remedy available to him, the High Court would ordinarily refrain from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

In view of the above settled position of law, this Court declines to entertain the present petition of the petitioner and leaves it open to him to avail the appropriate alternative remedy available to him under law.

¶21

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with leave and liberty as

¶22

above.

¶23

(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
19-11-2025
Showkat Khan

Mohammad Ashraf Lone v. Ishtiaq Ahmad Mir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ashraf Lone v. Ishtiaq Ahmad Mir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Sharma through Lrs Suman Sharma and Others Vs Darbari Lal and Another

Abid Hussain Vs Union Territory of J and K Th.Chief Secretary and Ors.

Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh Vs Gulzar Ahmad Sheikh and Ors.

Umer Ashraf Nahami Vs Mst. Tanzeela

M/S Ace Enterprises through Abdul Rehman Bhat Vs Shri Jagdeep Rana

Ashiq Hussain Sofi Vs Intizamia Committee Jamia Masjid Abu Baker Sidiq

J and K Bank Limited and Anr. Vs Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court and Anr.

Irfan Ahmad Teli Vs Manzoor Ahmad Wani

State of J and K through Drug Inspector Vs M/S Syed Sons Enterprises through Ayed Ishrat Hussain

Zahoor Ahmad Ganie Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Housing and Urban Development)

Mairaj Ud Din Paala Vs Manzoor Coles India

Syed Muzaffar Mehdi Rizwi Vs Syed Mujtaba Hussain Rizvi and Ors.

Irfan Rashid Dar Vs Mohammad Shafi Bhat

Nissar Ahmad Bhat Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Home)