HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
OWP No. 2380/2018
IA No. 1/2018
Date of order: 24.12.2018
Abdul Rashid Chalak
V/s
State of JK & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Rehana Adv.
For the Respondent(s):
This is the petition filed by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of section 104 of the J&K State Constitution and is directed against the order of Learned Ist Subordinate Civil Judge (Municipal Magistrate Srinagar) dated 12.12.2018, whereby the application of the petitioner for seeking leave of the court to file additional pleas (replica) has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts pleaded to file the instant petition are that the suit filed by the petitioner for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction restraining respondent no. 5 from raising any construction illegally and unauthorizedly to the prejudice of the rights of the petitioner is pending adjudication before the Ist Subordinate Civil Judge (Municipal Magistrate Srinagar) “hereinafter referred to as the court”. The respondent no. 5 has filed his written statement in which he has clearly and unequivocally refuted the contents of the plaint. The petitioner with a view to file additional pleading moved an application before the trial court for submitting additional pleadings (replica). As is apparent from the application so filed, the petitioner has pleaded that the replica is necessitated to clarify its position in reference to the contents of the para’s 4,5,6,10,12 & 13 of the written statement. The trial court did not find any substance in the application and rejected the same vide order impugned. As is apparent from the order impugned the leave to file replica has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the new facts which have come in the written statement and which need to be refuted or explained.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that no case is made out for exercising the power of superintendence of this Court vested by virtue of section 104 of State Constitution. The parameters for exercise of this power to interfere with the interlocutory orders of the Civil Court is well defined. The order impugned clearly falls in the realm of discretionary order and unless the the discretion is demonstrated to have been exercised with material irregularity, and in ignorance of the settled legal principles it cannot be made subject matter of interference in supervisory jurisdiction. Otherwise also on merits I do not find any case in favour of the petitioner. I have carefully gone through the paragraph nos. 4,5,6,10,12 & 13 of the written statement which contain nothing new except the denial of the averments made in the corresponding paras of the plaint. There is nothing new pleaded in the written statement, which if not permitted to be rebutted by the petitioner would prejudice the case of the petitioner.
For all these reasons I do not find it a fit case for interference in the impugned order. This petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Srinagar 24.12.2018
