Sanjeev Kumar ORDER
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
1. Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of judgment dated 3rd November 2018, passed by learned Judge Small Cases (Sub Juge), Srinagar (for brevity "Trial Court") in a civil suit bearing File No. 32 titled Mst Posha v. State of J & K and others.
2. Petitioner's case is that he has filed a suit against respondent No. 6 and other co-sharers for partition of ancestral property along with prayer for injunction to restrain official respondents from granting sanction for installation of power connection and waterpipes through the yard of petitioner. Learned City Munsif, Srinagar, is said to have passed status quo order on 26th June 2016, which is in operation. It is contended that notwithstanding pendency of aforesaid suit and order of status quo, respondent No. 6 filed another suit before learned Trial Court against official respondents to the exclusion of present petitioner and succeeded in earning a consent decree while in collusion with official respondents. In terms of judgment dated 3rd November 2018, impugned herein, official respondents are said to have been directed to provide power and water connection to respondent No. 6.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and considered the matter.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that respondent No. 6 has earned impugned judgment by exercise of fraud on court while suppressing pendency of earlier suit concerning same subject matter and order of status quo granted by learned City Munsiff, Srinagar. Impugned judgment, according to learned counsel, is without jurisdiction in view of provisions of Water Management and Resources Act of 2010 inasmuch as learned Trial Court has fell in an error of law to pass a decree without taking statutory requirement into consideration regardless of admission of official respondents adopted in passing the judgment. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently stated that impugned judgment is not on compromise but admission under Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, learned Trial Court was required to examine validity and tenor of contents of oral and written statement adopted as admission for drawing impugned decree. He has also contended that impugned judgment has resulted in a severe miscarriage of justice and that petitioner has no remedy available except moving instant writ petition before this Court, seeking setting aside of impugned judgment and decree.
5. It appears that plaintiff has filed a civil suit for partition, possession and injunction (Annexure A with writ petition), in which respondent No. 6 has been arrayed as party defendant No. 2. An order dated 26th October 2016 (Annexure B with petition) has been passed by learned City Munsiff, directing maintaining of status quo with respect to suit property and not to create any third-party interest. Written statement (Annexure C with petition) appears to have been filed by defendants 4 & 5 in opposition to suit of present petitioner.
6. On 23rd October 2017, a civil suit titled Mst Posha v. State of J & K and others (Annexure D with petition) had been filed by respondent No. 6 herein, seeking grant of declaration and injunction. The said suit has been decreed by learned Trial Court by impugned judgment dated 3rd November 2018. The said judgment has been passed on consensus of learned counsel for parties, with a direction to defendants therein to provide water and electricity connection to plaintiff.
7. Before adverting to case in hand, it would be apt to notice the position of law qua exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under the umbrella of Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which is pari materia to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The fact that the High Court........