On May 26, 2025, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar, ruled that interim directions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be issued against individuals who are not parties to the suit or appeal. The court emphasized that granting an interim injunction in respect of a claim not projected by a person before the court in a particular proceeding is beyond the scope of these provisions.

This decision arose from a dispute over land originally owned by Mst. Farzi, who sold it to Mohammad Abdullah Sheikh. Her co-sharers, Mohammad Shaban Ganai and another, filed a preemption suit claiming the right to purchase the land before any outsider. The Sub Judge, Budgam, ruled in their favor on February 19, 2007. However, before this judgment could be executed, the land was sold again to Mushtaq Ahmad Rather on October 5, 2007, who took possession and filed a civil suit asserting his ownership. His suit was later dismissed by the High Court, but he was given the liberty to file a separate claim before the Executing Court.

Meanwhile, Mohammad Abdullah Sheikh filed an appeal against the 2007 judgment, accompanied by a plea to condone the delay. During the pendency of that appeal, the appellants sought an injunction to prevent Mushtaq Ahmad Rather from raising any construction on the land. However, Mushtaq was not a party to the appeal. He opposed the injunction, asserting that he had been in possession of the land for over 13 years under a valid sale deed, and that his rights could not be curtailed in a case to which he was not a party.

The District Judge dismissed the injunction application, stating that an interim injunction could not be passed against a non-party to the suit and that the appellants failed to demonstrate any irreparable loss warranting such relief. The High Court upheld this decision, reinforcing the principle that interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot be granted against individuals not party to the proceedings.

This ruling underscores the importance of procedural propriety in civil litigation, ensuring that courts do not extend interim relief to individuals without affording them the opportunity to be heard.

Sources