SHYAMRATI Vs. NARESH KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 7/7/2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 2024, Shri Naresh Kumar Arora vs. Smt. Shyamrati, whereby the learned District Judge, Dehradun allowed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the present respondent and further set aside the order dtd. 22/4/2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun in O.S. No. 242 of 2023, Shri Naresh Kumar Arora vs. Smt. Shyamrati.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner/defendant that she is the lawful owner of the property bearing Property No. 49 of 2021, Akhada Mohalla, Dehradun (New No. 67, Ajeet Prasad Marg). The said property was purchased by the petitioner from its erstwhile owner, namely Shiv Kumar Gupta, on 3/6/2016 through a registered sale deed. One Mr. Chunni Lal Arora, father of the respondent herein, purchased the adjacent property vide a registered sale deed dtd. 4/2/1960. The respondent/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 242 of 2023, Naresh Kumar Arora vs. Smt. Shyamrati, before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun on 26/7/2023, seeking a decree of injunction. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction, being Application No. 6C2, with a prayer to restrain the petitioner from creating any third-party interest in the suit property. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections and was rejected vide order dtd. 22/4/2024. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2024, Naresh Kumar Arora vs. Smt. Shyamrati. The learned Appellate Court, vide order dtd. 7/7/2025, disposed of the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property, and set aside the order dtd. 22/4/2024 passed by the learned trial court in O.S. No. 242 of 2023. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal and improper, as the court has failed to appreciate the material available on record. He further submits that the property in question is the self-acquired property of the petitioner/defendant and that the respondent/plaintiff has no right to interfere with her peaceful possession.