NATASHA MAKKAD Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by Civil Judge (SD) Dehradun in O.S. No. 328 of 2016 whereby the trial Court granted an exparte injunction restraining the petitioner from entering into the matrimonial house. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by 7th Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2016,whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the ex-parte injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) On 27.06.2016, the respondents instituted the Civil Suit No. 328 of 2016 before the trial Court seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner and her husband, namely, Jasvinder Singh Makkad. The suit was registered on the same day and 23.08.2016 was fixed for filing written statement. On the same day, the learned trial Court also considered the interim injunction application and passed order directing the petitioner not to enter forcefully inside the property in dispute and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the respondents. Against the said order, a Misc. Civil Appeal no. 52 of 2016 was filed, in which an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, staying the effect and operation of the order of the trial Court. The Appellate Court s order was challenged before this court in Writ Petition (MS) No. 1987 of 2016. The said writ petition was allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Court was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Court for deciding the appeal, itself. Thereafter, the said appeal has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.

(3.) The Appellate Court, prima-facie held that the respondent is the owner in possession of the property in dispute; the appellant and her husband have given threats to the respondents that they will forcefully occupy the property in dispute, therefore, the Appellate Court held that the trial Court did not commit any manifest error of law or illegality in passing the order. Ultimately, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.