FAROOQ AHMAD MIR S. M. SALEEM vs HABIB UL LLAH BHAT AND OTHERS — CM(M)/147/2026
Case under Article 227-Section 104 Section 227. Disposed: Contested--Dismised on 06th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC010019952026
Filing Number
CM(M)/1523/2026
Filing Date
02-05-2026
Registration No
CM(M)/147/2026
Registration Date
02-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
Bench Type
SINGLE BENCH
Category
SB MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASES ( 125 )
Sub-Category
QUASHMENT OF ORDER ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL CASES (C)
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismised
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FAROOQ AHMAD MIR S. M. SALEEM
Respondent(s)
HABIB UL LLAH BHAT AND OTHERS
Orders
Summary of CM(M) 147/2026 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed petitioner Farooq Ahmad Mir's petition challenging the interim injunction granted to respondents Habib Ul-llah Bhat and others in a suit for permanent injunction over disputed property. The Court upheld both lower courts' orders, holding that an unregistered agreement to sell can be used for the collateral purpose of establishing prima facie possession, and that at the interlocutory stage, courts need not conclusively determine title—only assess prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury. The Court found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of CM(M) 147/2026 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed petitioner Farooq Ahmad Mir's petition challenging the interim injunction granted to respondents Habib Ul-llah Bhat and others in a suit for permanent injunction over disputed property. The Court upheld both lower courts' orders, holding that an unregistered agreement to sell can be used for the collateral purpose of establishing prima facie possession, and that at the interlocutory stage, courts need not conclusively determine title—only assess prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury. The Court found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts