SANGITA Vs. KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was pressed as an urgent petition by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It was claimed that the interim order dated 31/01/2020 passed by this Court was being misinterpreted by the petitioner, leading to conflict and therefore, urgency in the matter. The writ petition arises out of orders passed on application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner (original plaintiff). The claim of the petitioner is that she is in possession of the suit property, which is an agricultural field wherein there are standing orange trees. The claim of the petitioner is based on a registered sale deed executed in her favour by the predecessor of respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. respondent No.3 herein. The Trial Court in the first instance granted the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner and rejected an application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. It was found by the Trial Court that the petitioner herein was in possession of the suit field.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an appeal before the District Court (Appellate Court). By the impugned order, the appeal was partly allowed and a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.

(3.) This Court on appreciation of the material on record found a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and therefore, by order dated 31/01/2020, granted stay of the order of the Appellate Court. This would obviously mean that the order holding the field today is the order of the Trial Court which was passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis that she continues to be in possession of the suit field.