Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Chuni Lal & Ors vs Guldev Raj & Ors on 18 May, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No. 113
Supplementary List-1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM(M) No. 94/2026
CM No. 3132/2026
Chuni Lal & Ors.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Manhar Mahajan, Advocate and
Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Advocate
Vs
Guldev Raj & Ors.
.....Respondents
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
(18.05.2026)
01. Heard Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by his Associates, representing the petitioners.
02. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submits
that if the facts in any pleading in a civil suit or
applications filed therein do not support a conclusion
or inference arrived at by a civil court or for that matter
even by an appellate court, then such an adjudication,
be it in a final matter or in an interim matter, is
nothing but perverse and affords and extends premium
to falsification and perversion of facts.
2
CM(M) No. 94/2026
03. In this regard, Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Senior
Advocate submits that the respondents No. 1 and 2
herein, namely, Guldev Raj and Som Raj joined by their
brother-Ghara Ram preferred a civil suit for declaration
with a consequential relief for partition by metes and
bounds with respect to property comprised in Khasra
No. 3532 measuring 05 kanals and 09 marlas situated
at Arnia, tehsil Arnia and District Jammu, before the
court of learned City Judge, Jammu on 29.04.2019.
04. In their said civil suit, the three plaintiffs therein,
namely, Guldev Raj, Ghara Ram and Som Raj came to
name seven defendants, all of whom are the petitioners
herein.
05. It took more than five years for the court of learned City
Judge, Jammu to dispose of an application under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure preferred by the three plaintiffs when by
virtue of an order dated 27.12.2025 the trial court of
learned City Judge, Jammu came to direct the parties
to maintain status quo qua possession of the suit land
as existing on the date of passing of the order till final
disposal of the suit but reserved a liberty to the non-
applicants/defendants therein to undertake
3
CM(M) No. 94/2026
construction activities only on those specific portions
which were pleaded to be in their exclusive possession
prior to the filing of the civil suit.
06. The permission so reserved in favour of the defendants
therein was expressly referred to be not an
acknowledgement of any right or title but an interim
arrangement to balance convenience.
07. The defendants therein in the civil suit were called
upon to submit an undertaking that the construction
allowed to be undertaken by them to stay confined to
specific portion being claimed by them to be in their
exclusive and undisturbed possession and in the event
of any adverse outcome of the litigation then the
defendants therein not to have any right to claim
compensation with respect to removal of the
construction taking place at their own cost.
08. The disposal of temporary injunction application of the
three plaintiffs had taken place in presence of their
counsel engaged in the suit.
09. After disposing of the temporary injunction application
in terms of said order dated 27.12.2025, one of the
three plaintiffs, namely, Ghara Ram-plaintiff No. 2 in
4
CM(M) No. 94/2026
the civil suit, demised on 19.02.2026 whereafter on
09.03.2026, the plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 in the civil suit,
joined by legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff No.
2-Ghara Ram came forward with a time-barred civil
miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the court of
learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu
accompanied with an application for condonation of
delay of 40 days.
10. In their application for condonation of delay, the
appellants came forward with a purported cause that
they were unaware of passing of the impugned order
dated 27.12.2025 on account of the fact that firstly
their counsel did not inform them and secondly, illness
of the plaintiff No. 2-Ghara Ram, who later on demised,
kept the appellants engaged with him, thus, leaving no
time for them to come and file the appeal.
11. The petitioners herein maintained a vehement objection
to the condonation of delay application but which came
to be brushed aside by the court below by virtue of an
impugned order dated 15.04.2026 and thereby taking
the appeal on docket to be adjudicated on merits.
5
CM(M) No. 94/2026
12. It is against this adjudication with respect to the
condonation of delay that the petitioners herein are
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under article 227 of Constitution of India on the plea
that it is improbable that the plaintiffs can be heard to
plead that their counsel in the civil suit kept them
uninformed of passing of order dated 27.12.2025 and
simultaneously, exploit the death of the plaintiff No. 2-
Ghara Ram on account of illness as a ground for
condoning the delay.
13. Ex-facie, this Court is also left wondering whether the
two pleas so raised in the condonation of delay
application were mutually serving or contradictory to
each other.
14. The learned court below is said to have not accepted
the first plea and rightly so because of the position of
law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but
with respect to the second plea related to the illness of
deceased-plaintiff No. 2-Ghara Ram, the same came to
have carried its persuasion for condonation of delay.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even
on that count the learned court below erred itself in
correct application of mind, particularly, when the legal
6
CM(M) No. 94/2026
representatives of the deceased-plaintiff No. 2-Ghara
Ram, at first instance, did not volunteer themselves to
become party to the civil suit while rushing up with
miscellaneous appeal.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is
only by context of legal representatives of deceased-
plaintiff No. 2 that scope of condonation of delay came
to be carved out otherwise the plaintiffs No. 1 and 3
could not have been heard to say that they had a
sufficient cause for not coming with the appeal before
the appellate court.
17. Prima facie case made out.
18. Issue notice to the respondents in main petition and in
the CM No. 3132/2026 as well.
19. Petitioners to furnish registered postal covers for
service of the respondents within a period of seven days
whereupon notice to go to the respondents.
20. List on 14.07.2026.
21. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order
dated 15.04.2026 passed by the court of learned 2nd
Additional District Judge, Jammu on file No.
IA/02/2026 in case 40/2026/Appeal with date of
7
CM(M) No. 94/2026
institution on 09.03.2026, titled “Guldev Raj & Ors.
Vs. Chuni Lal & Ors.” shall remain stayed with no
further proceedings in the appeal taken on record shall
be conducted till further orders from this Court.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
18.05.2026
SUNIL
