Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Gulam Ahmad Kuchay & Ors vs Fayaz Ahmad Kuchay & Ors on 24 July, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
156
Suppl-I
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 307/2026 CM(4577/2026)
Caveat 1370/2026.
Gulam Ahmad Kuchay & Ors.
...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Arif Hussain Bhat, Advocate.
VERSUS
Fayaz Ahmad Kuchay & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy AG.
Mr. Syed Wasiq Ahmad, Advocate for caveators/respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
ORDER
24.07.2026
Caveat No. 1370/2026:
1. With the appearance of Mr. Syed Wasiq Ahmad, learned
Advocate for respondents, Caveat No. 1370/2026 stands
discharged.
CM(M) No. 307/2026:
2. This case has been built purely at the cost of the reputation of
Advocate Mr. M. R. Kuchay, a practicing Advocate of District
Anantnag, who is no more and in whose absence, the
respondent, as a plaintiff in a civil suit before the Court of the
Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag, has come up
with an averment in the suit claiming a corresponding relief that
he (the petitioner) is not a signatory to a registered partnership
deed dated 28th March, 2006, registered by the Sub-Registrar,who, at the relevant point of time, used to be a judicial officer.
3. The suit document, i.e., the partnership deed, is purportedly
between the respondent and defendant No. 2- Ghulam Ahmad
Kuchay, defendant No. 3- Abdul Salam Kuchay, defendant No.
4- Ghulam Nabi Kuchay and defendant No. 5- Mohammad
Ismail Kuchay.
4. The purported execution and registration of the partnership
deed dated 28th March, 2006 came to be followed by the
execution of a registered lease deed dated 31st March, 2006 by
the defendant No. 2- Ghulam Ahmad Kuchay, defendant No. 3-
Abdul Salam Kuchay, defendant No. 4- Ghulam Nabi Kuchay
and defendant No. 5- Mohammad Ismail Kuchay in favour of
respondent as lessee in respect of a plot of land measuring 3
kanals comprised in khasra No. 156 Min situated at Khiman
Ganesh Raina Wanpoh Kulgam Road.
5. The lease deed by a registered lease deed was drafted by none
else than said Advocate Mr. M. R. Kuchay, who authored the
partnership deed as well between the parties.
6. The identification of the parties at the time of registration of the
aforesaid two documents was also being done by none else than
Advocate Mr. M. R. Kuchay.
7. A third document, that is, a supplementary lease deed dated
23.12.2006 again came to be executed by same set of four
lessors namely defendant No. 2- Ghulam Ahmad Kuchay,
defendant No. 3- Abdul Salam Kuchay, defendant No. 4-
Ghulam Nabi Kuchay and defendant No. 5- Mohammad Ismail
Kuchay in favour of respondent. The said document was again
authored by none else than Advocate Mr. M. R. Kuchay and the
identification of the executants to the document before the Sub-
Registrar was also done by him for facilitating its registration.
8. It is in this backdrop that this Court is concerned with an
averment in the plaint made from the end of the respondent that
the partnership deed is an outcome of fraud and deceit on the
part of the four other executants, above named, so as to lay a
claim to the petrol pump dealership being run at the site of the
demised land.
9. The respondent is going to the extent of alleging that he had
never been a signatory to the said Deed of Partnership attributed
to him and that the same has been manufactured with a view to
causing prejudice to him, read literally as well as inferentially.
The averment so made by the respondent in the plaint amounts
to professional assassination of Advocate Mr. M. R. Kuchay, who
is now a deceased person and cannot come forward to defend
his honour with respect to the fact that he drafted the
partnership deed upon the joint instructions of the executants
thereto, and the execution of the document was followed in his
presence and himself being a signatory to the same as an author
and also identifying the parties appearing before the Sub-
Registrar.
10. From the tone and tenor of the plaint, it appears that when the
Indian Oil Corporation, being the licensor/principal, came to
confront the respondent with regard to the aspect that the petrol
pump dealership was being run, or was allegedly being run, in
partnership without the notice and consent of the Indian Oil
Corporation, the respondent resorted to the institution of the
civil suit so as to get a declaration with respect to the
partnership document and thereby salvage the allotment of the
petrol pump dealership in his favour.
11. It is in this backdrop that the trial Court of the learned Sub-
Judge, Anantnag, came forward with an ad-interim ex-parte
order dated 06.02.2025, temporarily restraining the petitioners
herein, being parties to the suit, from causing any sort of
interference with the operation of the dealership by the
respondent and, at the same time, the impugned document
dated 26th March, 2006 (partnership deed) was put in
abeyance temporarily.
12. The direction as given in the order dated 06.02.2025 came to
be confirmed by final order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the
Court of the learned Sub-Judge, Anantnag, while disposing of
the application for temporary injunction, with a modification in
the tenor of the ex parte ad-interim order, directing that the
suit-scheduled matter between the parties shall remain in status
quo on spot with regard to the operation of the outlet, but
vacating the direction with respect to the operation of the
partnership deed dated 26.03.2006.
13. The order dated 31.12.2025 remained unassailed from the end
of the respondent, as plaintiff, as well as from the end of the
petitioners herein, as defendants.
14. An application came to be made from the end of the petitioners
before the Court of the learned Sub-Judge, Anantnag, seeking
clarification of the direction given in the order dated
31.12.2025, which came to be answered by the learned Sub-
Judge, Anantnag, in terms of an order dated 25.05.2026 stating
that the parties shall remain bound by order dated 31.12.2025
and shall strictly maintain status quo as clarified therein.
15. Against said order dated 25.05.2026, neither the respondent
nor the petitioners chose to come in challenge before any higher
Court, including this Court.
16. The purported cause of action for the petitioners, as
defendants, to come forward with the present petition under
article 227 of the Constitution of India is an order dated
13.06.2026 passed by the Court of the learned Sub-Judge,
Anantnag, in response to an application filed by the respondent,
whereby the SHO, Police Station Qaimoh, District Anantnag, has
been directed to ensure that the operation of the petrol pump is
not unnecessarily hindered on account of the inter se dispute
between the parties to the suit and that public access to the
facility remains unaffected.
17. The learned Sub-Judge has added an observation that the
direction unto the SHO, Police Station concerned, is purely
interim in nature, issued only for the purpose of maintaining the
status quo and ensuring the effective implementation of the
directions of the Court, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the rival claims of the parties, which are to be
adjudicated independently in accordance with law.
18. It is this order which gives the petitioners an occasion to come
to this Court, and this Court is coming up with the opening
observation that at the cost of the reputation of a dead person-
Advocate Mr. M. R. Kuchay, the foundation of the civil suit laid
by the respondent is resting.
19. The very fact that the Indian Oil Corporation is cognizant of the
development, though not of the institution of the suit, but surely
of the fact that the petitioners No. 1 to 4 are claiming themselves
to be partners in the running of the petrol pump, means that it
cannot stay away from its role in the matter. What was actually
meant for the SHO, Police Station Qaimoh, should have been
meant for the Indian Oil Corporation so as to come on the scene
and run the petrol pump till the civil litigation initiated between
the respondent and the petitioners takes its due time for a final
answer, without compromising with day-to-day running of the
petrol pump which is a public utility facility in which the direct
stakeholder is none else than the Indian Oil Corporation.
20. This Court intends to dispose of this petition at its very
inception stage, as, at the end of the day, the order impugned
dated 13.06.2026 merely directs the SHO, Police Station
Qaimoh, to carry out the implementation of the directions of the
civil court.
21. However, before doing that, this Court calls upon Mr. Hakim
Aman Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil
Corporation to apprise this Court as to whether the Indian Oil
Corporation, through its authorized officers, is in a position to
take over, in receivership, the running of the petrol pump in
question without affecting the respective position of the parties
to the suit.
22. Let this Court be apprised on this aspect on the next date of
hearing.
23. List in continuation on 31st July, 2026.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
24.07.2026
Bisma Jan.
