Srinagar, Oct. 12, KDC: Holding that a trial court cannot arbitrarily reverse its own disposed-of interim orders under the garb of a “clarification,” the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has stayed a “U-turn” order passed by a Srinagar Munsiff court and summoned a report explaining a one-year delay in pronouncing a verdict.
Hearing a petition filed by Manzoor Ahmad Bawni and others, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal stayed the operation of an order dated March 9, 2024, passed by the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, and directed the Registrar Judicial to summon the scanned records of the case.
The dispute stems from a civil suit where the trial court originally disposed of an interim application on February 5, 2024. In that order, the Munsiff court observed that the defendants possessed proper building permissions from the competent authority. Ruling that the balance of convenience tilted in their favor, the trial court permitted the defendants to proceed with the construction/demolition over the disputed wall, subject to filing an indemnity bond assuring they would restore the status quo ante if the final suit was decided against them.
However, the plaintiff subsequently filed an application seeking “clarification” of this order. On March 9, 2024, the trial court entertained the application and issued a fresh direction ordering the defendants not to continue any demolition or construction until the next date of hearing, effectively reversing its own February 5 decision. The defendants objected to this “U-turn,” and arguments on the matter were concluded on October 3, 2025. Despite the conclusion of arguments, the trial court failed to pronounce an order for over a year, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Erfan Akbar argued that the trial court’s reversal of its own order under the guise of clarification was legally impermissible and that the unexplained one-year delay in passing a formal order had caused grave prejudice.
Agreeing with the petitioners, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,”This Court is also prima facie satisfied that once the interim application stood disposed of, whereby the learned Trial Court was alive to the situation by considering the rights of both the parties and the balance of convenience, then there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to have upset the order passed in the interim application, by way of a clarification, which is not permissible under law,” the Court said.
Taking strong exception to the judicial delay at the lower court level, the Bench said,”In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the record which has been produced before this Court, this Court deems it proper to have a report from the learned Trial Court i.e. court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, explaining as to why till date the order has not been pronounced in the application seeking clarification, despite the fact that the arguments stood concluded way back on 03.10.2025.”
The High Court issued a notice to the respondent, stayed the impugned March 9, 2024 order, and listed the matter for further hearing on October 31, 2026. (KDC)
