Supp v. Union Territory of J&K
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANJAY DHAR
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment dated 09.05.2025. The review petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 27.05.2025 Aasif
Judgment
Through: Mr. S M Ayoub, Adv. V/s Union Territory of J&K Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ….. Respondent(s) ORDER 27.05.2025
The petitioners, have sought review of the order dated
09.05.2025, passed by this Court, whereby petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Shopian, has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in para (17) of the judgment under review, it has been recorded by this Court the petitioners have not paid balance sale consideration to respondent No. 5 to 7 which fact is contrary to P a g e | 2 RP No. 45/2025 In CM(M) No. 183/2025 the pleadings and the documents on record. It has been submitted that the petitioners have already paid whole of the sale consideration of Rs. 12.50 lacs to respondent No. 5 to 7 and in this regard, they have also executed a receipt in favour of the petitioners. On this ground, it is being urged that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Heard and considered.
The plea projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the pleadings and the documents filed by the petitioners, they had paid whole of the sale consideration of Rs. 12.50 lacs to respondent No. 5 to 7, appears to be well founded, but the question arises that even if it is accepted that the petitioners have paid whole of the sale consideration to respondent No. 5 to. 7, there would be any difference to the ultimate conclusion drawn by this Court. I am afraid there can’t be any difference in the outcome of the case, for the reason that this Court has clearly observed that permission was not granted for sale of 08 marlas of suit land in favour of the petitioners by the competent authority in terms of Act of 1997. On this ground alone, the interim order in favour of the petitioners could not have been P a g e | 3 RP No. 45/2025 In CM(M) No. 183/2025 continued by the learned trial court. Thus the trial court has rightly suspended the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners in terms of impugned order dated 17.04.2025.
In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment dated 09.05.2025. The review petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 27.05.2025 Aasif
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.