Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar

Order Date: 29.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi, Proprietor, A‑One Dry Cleaners, Srinagar (represented by Advocate Adil Aismi). Respondent – Abdul Hamid Malla, Srinagar (represented by Advocates Zahoor Ahmad Shah and Sibghatullah Shah).
  • Nature of Proceeding: FAO No. 20/2026 filed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in civil suit Abdul Hamid Malla v. Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi directing the appellant to deposit Rs 56,250 as alleged rent arrears and to continue paying occupational charges of Rs 5,000 per month during the pendency of the suit.
  • Background: The respondent‑landlord has instituted two ejectment suits – O/S No. 2921/2025 (Abdul Hamid Malla v. Mushtaq Ahmed Zarkab) and O/S No. 2922/2025 (Abdul Hamid Malla v. Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi). Both suits contain similar interlocutory directions for payment of arrears and occupational charges.
  • Earlier Related Proceeding: The order in O/S 2921/2025 was challenged through FAO No. 19/2026. A Coordinate Bench dismissed that appeal on maintainability grounds on 08.07.2026, reserving the right to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
  • Appellant’s Contentions: The direction to deposit arrears and occupational charges is arbitrary, beyond the trial court’s interlocutory jurisdiction, and amounts to a substantial part of final relief without evidence on tenancy termination, rent rate, or mesne profits. Counsel argued the order falls under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC (or Rules 1‑2) and is therefore appealable under Section 104 read with Order XLIII CPC.
  • Respondent’s Contentions: The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction; Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC requires a clear admission of liability, which is absent. The direction should be treated as an exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, not appealable.
  • Legal Issues: Whether the order directing deposit of alleged arrears and occupational charges is appealable under CPC (specifically Order XXXIX Rule 10, Rules 1‑2, or inherent powers under Section 151) and whether the trial court’s jurisdiction was proper.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the impugned order was not passed under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC nor under Rules 1 or 2; it was issued under the inherent jurisdiction of the trial court under Section 151 CPC.
  • Orders issued under inherent powers are not appealable under Section 104 read with Order XLIII CPC.
  • Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
  • The appellant is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, including invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
  • All connected CM(s) are also disposed of.

Topics: Civil Procedure, Tenancy Dispute