Valley Kesar v. Gowhar Ahmad Rather & Anr.

Through :- Mr. Shabir Ahmad Dar, Advocate

Valley Kesar, through its registered proprietor, .....Contesting Respondent(s) v/s Nisar Ahmed Reshi, S/o Gh. Mohd. Reshi, R/o Lethapora, Pulwama.

Gowhar Ahmad Rather, S/o Abdul Ahad Rather, Trading as The Kesar Valley, NH-44, Lethapora, Pulwama, R/o Lethpora Pulwama.

Zaheen Wani, S/o Farooq Ahmad Wani, Partner in trading as the Kesar Valley, NH-44 Lethpora, Pulwama, R/o Zaffaran Colony, Zewan. .....Proforma Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Dar Khurshid, Advocate CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON‟BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE (Through Virtual Mode) Caveat No. 2692/2025 ORDER (ORAL) 1) With the appearance of learned counsel for the caveator, caveat stands discharged. CM No. 11/2026

1. This is an application by one Shaheena, D/o Mohd. Akram Bhat, seeking leave of this Court to challenge by way of an appeal an ex- parte judgment and decree dated 11.10.2025 [“the judgment and decree impugned”] passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama [„the trial Court”], in case titled “Valley Kesar Vs. Gowhar Ahmad Rather & Anr.”.

CM No. 11/2026 in RFA No. 1/2026 Caveat No. 2692/2025 2 The leave to file appeal by the applicant is sought on the ground that in terms of the judgment and decree impugned, the Respondent No. 1 is executing the decree against her. The applicant claims that the shop in the name of “The Kesar Valley” is being operated and run by her and, therefore, she is seriously prejudiced by the decree impugned. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we find that the ex-parte judgment and decree impugned passed by the trial Court, which the applicant is seeking to challenge by leave of this Court, is a judgment and decree binds only the parties to the suit. Admittedly, the applicant/appellant is not a party defendant in the suit and, therefore, cannot claim to be a judgment debtor. Needless to say that the decree of the trial Court binds only the parties before it and this is so specifically said by the trial Court in the judgment itself which is sought to be assailed by the applicant/appellant. Viewed thus, the applicant/appellant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved having a right to challenge the decree which has been passed between different parties. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this application and the same, is accordingly, dismissed and as a consequence whereof, the appeal bearing RFA No. 1/2026 is also dismissed. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge (Sanjeev Kumar) JAMMU 06.03.2026 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No Yes/No