HC recalls interim order in Jammu property dispute after caveat overlooked

13/05/2026

JAMMU, May 12: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recalled its earlier interim direction restraining parties from creating third-party interest in a disputed residential property in Jammu after observing that the order had been passed without taking note of a caveat lodged by the respondents.
Justice Rahul Bharti passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Sabha Sheikh challenging concurrent orders of the subordinate courts refusing temporary injunction in a civil dispute concerning ownership and partition of a residential property situated at Jullaka Mohalla, Jammu.
The petitioner was represented by advocate M. Nadeem Bhat, while respondents No. 1 to 3 were represented by senior advocate Aseem Kumar Sawhney along with advocate Tehseena Bukhari.
As per the case record, the dispute pertains to land measuring one kanal and 12 marlas comprising Khasra No. 345 along with a two-storeyed residential house at Jullaka Mohalla. The petitioner had sought declaration of ownership rights, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining interference by the respondents, mandatory injunction and partition of the property by metes and bounds among the parties in equal shares.
The High Court noted that at the time of institution of the suit, the court of Sub-Judge, Jammu had initially granted temporary protection to the petitioner on September 10, 2024 by restraining the respondents from creating third-party interest in the suit property. However, the temporary injunction application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was later dismissed by the Sub-Judge through order dated March 18, 2025.
The petitioner subsequently challenged the order before the court of Additional District Judge, Jammu by filing a civil miscellaneous appeal bearing file No. 53/2025, but the appeal too came to be dismissed on December 3, 2025 after the appellate court found no merit in the challenge.
Following dismissal of the appeal, respondent No. 1 Dilshada Sheikh lodged a caveat before the High Court on December 6, 2025 in anticipation of further proceedings by the petitioner against the appellate order. The caveat was accompanied by communication sent through registered post to the petitioner at the address mentioned in the petition.
The High Court observed that when the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed on January 12, 2026, an omission on the part of the filing counter resulted in the caveat not being annexed with the case file. Consequently, the matter came up before the court without disclosure of the caveat, leading to an interim order dated January 15, 2026 directing the parties not to create any third-party interest in the property.
Justice Rahul Bharti observed that this sequence of events had prejudiced the respondents, particularly respondent No. 1 who had already lodged the caveat before the High Court.
The court reiterated the settled legal principle that an act of the court should prejudice no person and held that the respondents had suffered prejudice because the caveat could not be placed before the court at the relevant stage due to an administrative omission.
"In view of the settled position of law that an act of court shall prejudice no one, this Court is left with no other option but to recall the direction," the court observed while withdrawing the interim protection granted earlier in relation to creation of third-party interest in the suit property.
The High Court thereafter directed respondents No. 1 to 3 to file objections to CM No. 885/2026 filed by the petitioner and listed the matter for further consideration on May 15, 2026.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty