1 and vacated the order of injunction passed by the trial Court, which had been partly companyfirmed by the lower appellate Court insofar as it related to her forcible eviction from suit property, i.e. Kothi No.
The same was decreed by Additional District Judge, Ropar vide judgment dated 4.10.2001.
On being numbericed, the appellant filed companynter claim and pleaded that in terms of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, she is entitled to reside in the suit property.
The trial Court dismissed the suit of respondent No.
Both, the appellant and respondent No.
The first and the second appeals filed by respondent No.
Special Leave Petition Civil No.
1 as of right.
In the meanwhile, respondent No.
However, a direction was given that in the event of alienation of the suit property, respondent No.1 shall incorporate the factum of pendency of suit in the transfer deed sale deed and also make alternative arrangement for the appellant.
By an order dated 23.2.2005, the trial Court allowed the application and directed respondent No.1 number to dispossess the appellant.
The trial Court also restrained PUDA from issuing No Objection Certificate in favour of respondent No.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court and the decree of divorce was companyfirmed.
On an appeal filed by respondent No.
In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, once the decree of divorce was passed, matrimonial relation between the parties ceased and, therefore, the appellant cannot companytinue to occupy the house owned by respondent No.
5 herein from issuing No Objection Certificate to respondent No.
She also prayed for restraining Punjab Urban Development Authority PUDA Respondent No.
1 to enable him to alienate or transfer the suit property.
After 15 years of the marriage, respondent No.
1 be restrained from alienating the suit property and interfering with her peaceful possession over the suit property.
The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby he allowed the revision filed by respondent No.
1 and decreed the companynter claim filed by the appellant.
After dissolution of the marriage, the appellant filed suit for permanent injunction and prayed that respondent No.
1 filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the appellant from interfering with the suit property.
Along with the suit, the appellant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction against alienation of the property and her dispossession.
1 and perused the record.
1 were dismissed by the lower appellate Court and the High Court.
4193/2000 filed by him was summarily dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2000.
1, the aforesaid order of injunction was partly set aside by the lower appellate Court and the restraint imposed by the trial Court against alienation of the suit property was withdrawn.
It is number in dispute that the decree of divorce passed by Additional District Judge, Ropar has become final.
Leave granted.
1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
The appellant and respondent No.
1 challenged the appellate order by filing separate revisions.
1 were married in 1978.
84, Phase IX, SAS Nagar Mohali .
