VINOD KUMAR BHAT Vs. ABDUL MAJEED LONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has invoked the power of superintendence of this Court vested in terms of Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K for issuance of appropriate direction to stay the proceedings in the civil suit titled Abdul Majeed Lone and Another vs. Vinod Kumar Bhat pending before the learned Sub Judge, Baramulla, Kashmir (hereinafter for short 'the trial court'). Stay of proceedings in the suit have been claimed by the petitioner, primarily, placing reliance on Section 3 of Jammu and Kashmir Migrants (Stay of Proceedings) Act, 1997 (hereinafter for short 'the Act of 1997').

(2.) Before this Court proceeds to deliberate on the issue raised in this petition, it would be necessary to notice few facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner claims, and which claim of the petitioner is not refuted by the respondents, that he is a migrant from Kashmir Valley having migrated to Jammu about 29 years back. Petitioner, as is asserted by him, is also registered as migrant with Relief Organization. The respondents have filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner for restraining him from interfering or causing any interference in the land measuring 17 marlas, falling under survey no. 1387, situated at revenue village Delina ('Suit property' for short hereinafter). The aforesaid suit is pending adjudication before the trial court. In the suit filed before the trial court, the respondents have claimed to be the owners and in possession of the suit property with which the petitioner has no concern or interest. The petitioner has not filed any written statement before the court below nor has he filed any application seeking stay of the proceedings before the trial court in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1997. The petitioner claims that since the dispute pertains to immovable property and the same has been instituted by the respondents against the petitioner, therefore, in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1997, the suit cannot proceed and deserves to be stayed. In the back drop of aforesaid facts, the petitioner claims that this Court should entertain the matter and stay the proceedings of the suit pending before the trial court.