JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Mohammad Ashraf Mir son of Wali Mohammad Mir resident of Chooru, presently Sopore, (Respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 05/2012 and Petitioner in OWP No. 1559/2011) on 3rd May 1999, filed a Suit in the court of Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Sopore for grant of Permanent Injunction decree, restraining defendants from interfering with his possession over the plot of land measuring 10 Kanals and 18 Marlas comprising Survey No. 474, situated at Baghat Tehsil Sopore ("disputed land", for short). He pleaded that he was owner in possession of 02 Kanals out of disputed land in terms of Gift Deed executed by original owner in his favour, registered on 5th May 1988. He claimed to have possession over rest of disputed land under power of attorney executed by original owners in his favour and registered by Sub Registrar, Jammu. The suit was resisted by defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit under J & K Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (hereinafter "Migrant Act of 1997") and J & K Migrants (Stay of Proceedings) Act, 1997 (for short "Migrant Stay Act of 1997"). Defendant No. 1 -- Master Ghulam Mohammad Dar son of Abdul Khaliq Dar resident of Kralteng, Sopore -- petitioner in Civil Revision No. 05/2012 and Respondent No. 1 in OWP No. 1559/2011, disputed all factual averments made in plaint. It was pleaded that original owners had executed various documents pertaining to disputed property in his favour and plaintiff had no right or interest in suit property, and therefore, could not ask for relief sought in plaint. 2. It is pertinent to point out that disputed land admittedly is owned by S/Shri Kanya Lal and Som Nath son of Radha Krishan residents of Sangrampora, Sopore. There is no dispute between parties in this regard. However, parties in their pleadings stake rival claims to disputed land on the basis of documents stated to have been executed by original owners in their favour. Be that as it may, Learned Trial Judge on 13th December 1999, opined that suit was barred under Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997. It was held that non-impleadment of original owners would not make suit maintainable. 3. Be that as it may, Learned Trial Judge on 13th December 1999, opined that suit was barred under Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997. It was held that non-impleadment of original owners would not make suit maintainable. 3. Trial Court order dated 13th December, 1999, was question in Civil Revision No. 173/1999, OWP No. 50/2000 and 144/2001 before this Court. The order dated 13th December 1999 was set aside on 25th February 2002 and Trial Court directed to array, S/Shri Kanya Lal and Som Nath sons of Radhay Krishan, as defendants, accept their written statement and frame preliminary issue as regards applicability of Migrant Act of 1997. It may be pointed out that plaintiff in OWP No. 50/2000, questioned order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sopore, on 7th April 1999, whereby powers were exercised under Migrant Act of 1997 qua disputed land. Defendant No. 3 (Som Nath) in OWP No. 144/2001 sought a direction to official respondents to act under provisions of Migrant Act of 1997 and take possession of disputed land through their attorney-defendant No. 1. Newly impleaded defendants appeared before Trial Court through counsel on 18th July 2002. Impleadment necessitated amendment to plaint. The plaint was amended, Kanya Lal and Som Nath shown as defendants 2 & 3. Parties further amended their pleadings in wake of developments subsequent to filing of suit. 4. The Trial Court on 27th July 2009, on perusal of pleadings, settled as many as fifteen issues. Issue No. 8 was treated as Preliminary Issue and in view of controversy raised, deserves to be noticed: "8. Whether the trial of the suit is barred by the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant's Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act 1997." 5. Learned Trial Judge on perusal of pleadings and hearing counsel for parties arrived at conclusion that suit land measuring 10 Kanals and 18 Marlas was equally co-shared by Kanya Lal (03 Kanals 13 Marias), Som Nath (03 Kanals 12 Marias) and their mother Leela Wati (03 Kanals 13 Marias), and after death of their mother Leela Wati, her share devolved on her two sons. Suit land, therefore, fell to ownership of defendants 2 & 3 in equal share i.e. 05 Kanals 09 Marias, each. Suit land, therefore, fell to ownership of defendants 2 & 3 in equal share i.e. 05 Kanals 09 Marias, each. It was further concluded that Kanya Lai-Defendant No. 2, out of his share had transferred 02 Kanals through Gift Deed in favour of plaintiff, but as regards rest of his share in disputed land, i.e. 03 Kanal 09 Marias, defendant No. 2 denied to have any document--a special power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1. Learned Trial Judge held that dispute as regards 03 Kanals 09 Marlas was a mixed question of fact and law, and therefore parties were to adduce evidence in support of their respective stand. In the opinion of learned Trial Judge, no document was claimed to have been executed by Defendant No. 3 in favour of either of the parties (plaintiff and Defendant No. 1) and possession of Defendant No. 3's share in the suit property i.e. 05 Kanals 09 Marlas was unauthorised within meaning of Section 2(i) of Migrant Act of 1997. Against above backdrop, it was held that Civil Court had jurisdiction to try suit to the extent of 05 Kanals 09 Marlas owned by Defendant No. 2 (Kanya Lai) and that jurisdiction of the Court was barred in terms of Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997, to the extent of 05 Kanals 09 Marlas in ownership of Defendant No. 3. 6. The Trial Court order dated 22nd November 2011, is questioned by both parties i.e. plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3, through their attorney - Defendant No. 1, in the suit. Plaintiff questions the Trial Court order through medium of writ petition, being OWP No. 1559/2011, while defendants 2 & 3, through their attorney Defendant No. 1, throw challenge to the order in Civil Revision No. 05/2012. 7. Petitioners in Civil Revision No. 05/2012 question Trial Court order to the extent it declares Suit maintainable as regards share of defendant No. 2. Petitioner maintains that agreement to sell, relied upon by plaintiff claimed to have been executed by defendant No. 2 in his favour, does not confer any right on plaintiff inasmuch as defendant No. 2 after execution of Gift Deed on 5th May 1988, was left with only 01 Kanal 13 Marlas and could not have executed agreement to sell in question beyond his share. It is pointed out that mother of defendants 2 & 3 was alive on the date agreement to sell is claimed to have been executed and defendant No. 2's ownership rights were, therefore, restricted to 03 Kanals 13 Marias. It is next pleaded that agreement to sell relied upon by plaintiff was manufactured document and in any case it would not transfer any right or interest in immovable property. Reliance is also placed on Section 138, Transfer of Property Act to plead that agreement to sell relied upon by plaintiff was of no legal consequence. Petitioner's case is that entire suit was hit by Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997 and Trial Court erred while holding that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit to the extent of share of defendant No. 2. 8. Petitioner in OWP No. 1559/2011 is aggrieved of Trial Court order to the extent it holds suit to fall beyond jurisdiction of Civil Court qua defendant 3's share. Petitioner insists that he was handed over possession of suit property by defendants 2 & 3, after Gift Deed dated 5th May 1988 and agreement to sell dated 9th December 1989 was executed by defendant No. 2 on his behalf and on behalf of his mother in consideration of an amount of Rs. 6.00 Lakhs, Rs. 4.50 Lakhs whereof was paid to defendant No. 2. The documents are said to have been followed by Special Power of Attorney, registered on 13th January 1990, authorising petitioner to deal with property in the manner detailed therein. It is stated that defendants 2 & 3, after the documents were executed and possession handed over, changed their mind and executed Power of Attorney dated 8th May 1998 and 28th October 1999 in favour of defendant No. 1. Trial Court, it is pleaded, was required to examine the matter in light of documents placed on record - an exercise not undertaken by Trial Court. Petitioner maintains that having regard to controversy raised in the suit, it does not fall within ambit of Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997 and therefore, suit was maintainable in its entirety. It is pleaded that in view of issues raised by parties in their pleadings, they were required to be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective stand and thereafter rights determined in accordance with law. It is pleaded that in view of issues raised by parties in their pleadings, they were required to be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective stand and thereafter rights determined in accordance with law. Trial Court is also said to have erred while staying proceedings to the extent of share of defendant No. 3 inasmuch as Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997, does not contemplate such recourse. 9. Petition is opposed by defendants 1 to 3 (Respondents 1 to 3 in OWP No. 1559/2011) on identical grounds as urged in Civil Revision No. 05/2012. Respondents reiterate that Agreement to Sell and Special Power of Attorney do not confer any right on petitioner. They also question Gift Deed, labelling it as sham deed, shrouded in mystery. Petitioner, according to respondents 1 to 3, cannot enter suit land in terms of Section 138, Transfer of Property Act, muchless claim possession over suit land and seek protection of such possession. It is stated that suit land is owned by respondents 2 & 3, who are migrants within meaning of Migrant Act of 1997, and therefore, entire suit is not maintainable under Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997. 10. I have gone through Civil Revision Petition, as also pleadings in OWP No. 1559/2011. I have perused record including Trial Court record and heard counsel for parties. 11. Strenuous effort is made by Mr. Lone, counsel for petitioners in Civil Revision No. 05/2012 and respondents in OWP No. 1559/2011, to persuade the Court to examine nature and legality of documents relied upon by parties. Reliance is placed on law laid down on Ghulam Hussain v. Ghulam Qadir and others (AIR 1978 J & K 88: 2010 (8) JKJ 427 [HC]) and Ghulam Qadir & Anr v. Hussain Civil Second Appeal No. 32 of 1971 decided on 18th January 1972 ( 2010 (8) JKJ 136 [HC]), to buttress argument that unregistered agreement to sell, does not create any right in favour of the person, in whose favour it is executed and that execution of agreement is not to amount to part performance as laid down under Section 138, Transfer of Property Act. It is next argued that all documents relied upon by respondents 1, are of no legal consequence and do not to entitle him to obtain or retain possession of suit property. It is next argued that all documents relied upon by respondents 1, are of no legal consequence and do not to entitle him to obtain or retain possession of suit property. I am of view that having regard to ambit and scope of controversy raised in petitions on hand, this Court should not allow itself to be dragged into question of legality of documents, relied upon by either of parties or rights, if any, flowing out of documents relied upon in their favour. Such exercise is to be left to competent forum. This Court, while dealing with petitions on hand, has to restrict itself to the issue raised in petition i.e. whether Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit as not maintainable in view of bar under Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997, proceeded with entire suit or Trial Court was right in retaining suit to the extent of share of defendant No. 2 and staying proceedings to the extent of share of defendant No. 3. 12. J & K Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, is aimed at preservation, protection, restraint on distress sales of immovable property of migrants. It is a fact of common knowledge that a section of population was constrained to leave their home and hearth in wake of turmoil in the Valley and other areas, and migrate to Jammu and other parts of the State and Country. They left behind their immoveable property. It was soon realised that with their absence from Valley and inability to protect their property, the property was open to mischief, encroachment and unauthorised occupation. It was also felt that migrants, because of lack of resources and support, were compelled to go for distress sale to sustain themselves and their families. Migrant Act of 1997 is an effort of Legislature to address problems that cropped up in wake of migration from the Valley and other areas. The fact that it was so intended, is clear from definition of "migrant" in Section 2(e) of Migrant Act of 1997. In terms of Section 3 of Migrant Act of 1997, restriction was put on alienation of immoveable property by a migrant except in accordance with procedure laid down therein. The fact that it was so intended, is clear from definition of "migrant" in Section 2(e) of Migrant Act of 1997. In terms of Section 3 of Migrant Act of 1997, restriction was put on alienation of immoveable property by a migrant except in accordance with procedure laid down therein. Prescribed authority in terms of Section 3 was expected to examine as to whether proposed sale was a distress sale or genuine transaction and did not prejudice interests of migrant. In terms of Section 4 of Migrant Act of 1997, District Magistrate is presumed to have taken over possession of migrant property and to have custody of such property. Section 5 confers power on District Magistrate to order eviction of unauthorised occupant. Section 8 bars jurisdiction of Civil Court. Section 8 is relevant to present controversy and needs to be extracted: "8. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force-- (a) no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising under this Act, or the rules made thereunder; and (b) no order of any officer or authority passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be called in question in any civil court." A bare look at above provision would reveal that Civil Court is stripped of jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising under the Act or Rules made under the Act. The Court is not to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 9 C.P.C. or examine the order passed by any officer or authority under the Act. 13. Ambit and scope of Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997 fell for consideration of this Court in Bhushan Lal & Ors. v. Makhan Lal Raina & Ors., (2008 (2) JKJ HC 621). Power and authority to execute special power of attorney by petitioners in favour of respondents was called in question in civil suit for declaration, laid before Second Additional Munsiff, Jammu. Learned Trial Judge vide order dated 4th October 2004 stayed operation of special power of attorney questioned in the suit. The Trial Court order was assailed in Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal before Additional District Judge, Jammu. The appeal did not succeed and was dismissed on 22nd August 2005. Learned Trial Judge vide order dated 4th October 2004 stayed operation of special power of attorney questioned in the suit. The Trial Court order was assailed in Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal before Additional District Judge, Jammu. The appeal did not succeed and was dismissed on 22nd August 2005. The orders of Court of first instance as also First Appellate Court were questioned in Civil Revision No. 135/2005 before High Court. The High Court, dismissing Revision Petition held that authorities under Migrant Act of 1997, do not have adjudicatory jurisdiction over all matters concerning migrant property and that question raised by plaintiff before leaned Munsiff, that special power of attorney executed by petitioners in favour of respondents 2 to 7 was null and void, was not, thus, cognizable by authorities under the Act. It would be advantageous to extract paragraphs 10 to 14: "10. There is no provision either in the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 or in the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property Rules, 1997 which provides any forum for adjudication of questions like the one which have been raised by respondent No. 1/plaintiff in his suit before Learned Second Additional Munsiff, Jammu. In terms of the provisions of the Migrant Immovable Property Rules, the only enquiry which the District Magistrate is empowered to hold under the Act and Rules is as to whether or not any alienation of the Migrants' Property had been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act. If on enquiry, he finds that the alienation had been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act, he may take possession of the property after evicting the alienee. 11. It is thus apparent that the authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property Rules, 1997 do not have any adjudicatory jurisdiction over all matters concerning the property of the migrant. The Act and Rules vest only limited jurisdiction in the authorities to the extent indicated in the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 12. The question raised by Respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the learned Munsiff that the Special Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was null and void, was not thus, cognizable by the authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. 13. 12. The question raised by Respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the learned Munsiff that the Special Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was null and void, was not thus, cognizable by the authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. 13. In terms of Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, the Civil Court's jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with only those questions has been barred, which had arisen under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 14. The question as to whether the petitioners were competent to execute Special Power of Attorney in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 has neither arisen under the Act nor under the Rules framed thereunder. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with this question would not thus stand ousted as urged by Mr. Nirmal Kotwal." 14. Having noticed law laid down in Bhushan Lal's case (supra), let us have an overview of case set up before learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Sopore. Respondent in Civil Revision No. 05/2012 and petitioner in OWP No. 1559/2011, i.e. plaintiff before Trial Court, claimed possession over the suit land on the basis of documents referred to in body of plaint, copies whereof were appended to suit. Respondent No. 1 in OWP No. 1559/2011 and attorney, through whom petitioners have filed Civil Revision, in his written statement, put forth rival claim to suit property. He insists that petitioners in Civil Revision No. 05/2012 and respondents 2 & 3 in OWP No. 1559/2011 i.e. defendants 2 & 3 in suit, had executed power of attorney on 18th May 1998 and 28th August 1999, in his favour and that power of attorney, relied upon by plaintiff, was revoked by original owners (defendants 2 & 3). It was, however, admitted that 02 Kanals out of suit land covered under Gift Deed, was in possession of plaintiff. The stand taken as regards lack of jurisdiction of Trial Court to proceed with suit is to be appreciated in the context of rival claim to suit land put forth by defendant No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 in OWP No. 1559/2011. 15. The stand taken as regards lack of jurisdiction of Trial Court to proceed with suit is to be appreciated in the context of rival claim to suit land put forth by defendant No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 in OWP No. 1559/2011. 15. It appears that an effort is made to use Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997, as a tool to defeat or at least delay adjudication of rival claim. Impression so gathered is reinforced by the stand taken by defendants 2 & 3 in their written statement filed in reply to plaint. Defendants 2 & 3 have nowhere in their written statement taken stand that Trial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with suit in terms of Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997. Written statement on other hand is aimed at lending support to rights claimed by Respondent No. 1 in OWP No. 1559/2011 (Defendant No. 1 in the suit) over suit land. Defendants 2 & 3, while denying plaintiffs possession over suit land and pleading that special power of attorney executed in his favour was revoked and agreement to sell never executed in his favour, insist that defendants have executed general power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 and that physical possession of disputed land has been handed over to Mst Khatija - wife of defendant No. 1. It would be appropriate to extract para "d" and "e" of preliminary objections in written statement: "(d) That defendant, Som Nath, admits that on 18.5.1998 he executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No. 1. Defendant, Som Nath also admits that he executed Agreement to Sell in respect of 5 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land situate at Baghat Sopore, Kashmir, in favour of Mst. Khatija wife of Defendant No. 1. It is also admitted by defendant Som Nath that the physical possession of 5 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land was allowed to be taken by Mst. Khatija Wife of Defendant No. 1. (e) That on behalf of defendant, Kanya Lai, it is submitted that he executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney on 2.1.1999 in favour of one Ghulam Nabi Kaboo S/o. Abdul Ahad Kaboo R/O Handwara. The said attorney holder was authorised under clause 2 to cancel the previous attorney given by defendant Kanya Lal in favour of plaintiff. (e) That on behalf of defendant, Kanya Lai, it is submitted that he executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney on 2.1.1999 in favour of one Ghulam Nabi Kaboo S/o. Abdul Ahad Kaboo R/O Handwara. The said attorney holder was authorised under clause 2 to cancel the previous attorney given by defendant Kanya Lal in favour of plaintiff. It is believed that the said attorney has been cancelled by Ghulam Nabi Kaboo, attorney holder. That the defendant, Kanya Lai, admits that he executed irrevocable general power of attorney in favour of Defendant No. 1 on 28.10.1999. Defendant Kanya Lal also submits that he admits that he executed Agreement to Sell on 28.10.1999 in favour of Mst. Khatija in respect of 3 Kanals and 9 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 1117/474 situate at Baghat, Sopore, Kashmir. The answering defendants place on record certified copies of such of the documents as have been registered. Copies of other documents which have been Notarized are also produced." It is submitted on the basis of the documents on record that the plaintiffs case is totally misconceived, baseless and misdirected. Plaintiff has no right in the property except the two Kanals gifted to him by Kanya Lal in the year 1988. The total land which was owned by the defendants was 10 Kanals 18 Marias. Out of which only two kanals, out of his share, were transferred by Kanya Lal in favour of plaintiff. Each of the defendants is entitled to 5 Kanals 9 Marlas in the total holding. That the transfer of 2 kanals of land, Kanya Lal held only 3 Kanals and 9 Marlas and Som Nath held 5 Kanals and 9 Marias. Both the defendants have voluntarily, upon valid consideration, transferred 8 kanals and 18 Marlas of their total left over holding in favour of wife of defendant No. 1 and have also executed irrevocable general power of attorney in favour of Defendant No. 1 to enable him to complete the transaction in such manner as the attorney holder may deem fit. The answering defendants totally deny any right of the plaintiff in 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas land. The answering defendants deny that the plaintiff is in possession of 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land. The answering defendants deny that they have ever agreed to transfer 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land to the plaintiff. 16. The answering defendants totally deny any right of the plaintiff in 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas land. The answering defendants deny that the plaintiff is in possession of 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land. The answering defendants deny that they have ever agreed to transfer 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land to the plaintiff. 16. Categoric stand taken by defendants 2 & 3, in their written statement adopted by defendant No. 1, makes it clear that defendants 2 & 3 instead of insisting on protection and safeguards available to them as migrants under Migrants Act of 1997 qua disputed land, support the claim of defendant No. 1 and resist the claim put forth by plaintiff. Safeguards under Migrant Act of 1997 available to a migrant in respect of his immovable property are for migrant to claim and once defendants 2 & 3 instead of insisting on enforcement of such safeguards, throw their weight behind one of claimants of suit land, question raised cannot be said to be one arising under Migrant Act of 1997. The authorities under Migrant Act of 1997 would step in and discharge Statutory duty under the Act only if there was a question arising under the Act where a migrant claims to have been unauthorisedly thrown out of his property, it would be Statutory obligation, of the authorities under the Act, to remove encroachment, take over the property and thereafter restore it to the migrant. Defendants 2 & 3, it may be stated at the cost of repetition, take categoric stand that they have transferred and handed over possession to Mst. Khatija - wife of defendant No. 1. Dispute in the suit is essentially between plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, and Defendant No. 1 cannot be permitted to make use of Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997, to question jurisdiction of Trial Court to try the suit. Civil Court, notwithstanding bar of jurisdiction created under Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997. The Civil Court would be acting within its jurisdiction while settling, deciding or dealing with any question other than one arising out of the Act. 17. In the present case as the issues framed by Trial Court would reveal, question to be decided is as regards legal character and validity of documents relied upon by rival parties to claim right over disputed land. 17. In the present case as the issues framed by Trial Court would reveal, question to be decided is as regards legal character and validity of documents relied upon by rival parties to claim right over disputed land. Whether Defendant No. 2 was competent to execute agreement dated 9th December 1989; whether agreement to sell satisfied requirement of law; whether agreement to sell was executed at all; whether special power of attorney executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of plaintiff was revoked and whether defendants 2 & 3 acted within their rights while executing general power of attorney in favour of Defendant No. 1 and agreement to sell in favour of Mst Khatija - wife of Defendant No. 1, are, amongst, questions that would warrant determination by the Court. All these issues cannot be said to be questions arising under the Act. Learned Sub Judge, therefore, erroneously held the suit to the extent of share of Defendant No. 3 not maintainable. The suit in the backdrop of above discussion was not barred under Section 8 of Migrant Act of 1997. Trial Court fell in error while holding that its jurisdiction to the extent of share of Defendant No. 3 was barred. The Trial Court appears to have ignored the material on file and in particular written statement filed by defendants 2 & 3, while deciding the preliminary issue. 18. For reasons discussed, order of Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Sopore dated 22nd November 2011, to the extent it declares suit to be barred qua share of Defendant No. 3 (Som Nath), is set-aside. Trial Court is held to have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. OWP No. 1559/2011 is accordingly disposed of and Civil Revision Petition No. 05/2012 dismissed. 19. Trial Court record be sent down. Parties to appear before Trial Court on 21st December 2015.