J&K&L High Court Seeks Explanation From Trial Court For Not Pronouncing Order On Clarification Plea For Nearly A Year

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that the record prima facie supported the petitioners' contention that the application had remained undecided for nearly a year, causing them prejudice. The Court also questioned the trial court's decision to modify an earlier interim arrangement through a clarification application after the original interim application had already been disposed of.

“The 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 High Court observed.

The Court directed the Registrar Judicial to obtain a report from the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, explaining the delay in pronouncing the order. It also stayed the trial court's order dated March 9, 2024, until the next date of hearing.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Manzoor Ahmad Bawni and others challenging the trial court's directions restraining construction and demolition over a disputed portion of land.

The dispute arose from a civil suit in which the plaintiff had sought interim protection concerning a wall and the disputed portion of land.

On February 5, 2024, the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, modified an earlier interim direction dated November 24, 2023, permitting the defendants to proceed with construction or demolition over the disputed area, subject to conditions.

The trial court had directed defendant No. 4 to furnish an indemnity bond undertaking that, if the suit were ultimately decided in the plaintiff's favour, the defendants would demolish the construction, restore the status quo ante and compensate the plaintiff as directed by the court.

The permission was also conditional upon the approval granted by the competent authority pertaining to the disputed area remaining in force. If the permission had been overturned or kept in abeyance, the parties were required to maintain status quo regarding the nature and possession of the disputed wall.

The petitioners contended that the respondent subsequently sought clarification of the order dated February 5, 2024. On March 9, 2024, the trial court directed the defendants not to continue demolition or construction over the disputed area until the next hearing, observing that the plaintiff had raised a question about whether the construction exceeded the permission granted by the competent authority.

The petitioners argued that the trial court had effectively reversed its earlier order under the guise of clarification, rendering the previous decision ineffective. They further submitted that arguments on their objections had concluded on October 3, 2025, but no order had been pronounced thereafter.

Court's Observations

After examining the record and hearing counsel for the petitioners, Justice Nargal found that a prima facie case for intervention had been made out.

The Court noted that the application seeking clarification had remained undecided despite arguments having concluded on October 3, 2025. It observed that the delay had caused prejudice to the petitioners.

The Court further observed that the trial court had already considered the rights of both parties and the balance of convenience while disposing of the original interim application. In these circumstances, the High Court was prima facie of the view that the earlier order could not have been upset through a clarification application.

Considering the circumstances, the Court directed the Registrar Judicial to seek a report from the trial court explaining why the order on the clarification application had not been pronounced despite the conclusion of arguments nearly a year earlier. The Registrar Judicial was also directed to summon the scanned record of the case from the court below.

The High Court issued notice to the respondent in the main petition and the connected application, making it returnable by or before the next date of hearing.

The Court directed that the matter be listed on October 31, 2026. In the meantime, the order dated March 9, 2024, was stayed, subject to objections from the other side. The trial court was, however, permitted to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.