- (1.) JUDGMENT Learned counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the writ petition finally today at the admission stage.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par­ties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13-5-2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Divi­sion), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun (Annexure No.2) and the order dated 23-3-2009 (Annexure No.4) passed by the appellate court. By the order dated 13-5-2008, the trial court has rejected the temporary in­junction application of the plaintiff-petition­ers moved in Original Suit No. 572 of 2007, but has allowed temporary injunc­tion application of the respondents (plain­tiffs of Original Suit No. 131 of 2008, Smt. Khatoon Vs. Smt. Jameela) and the peti­tioners were restrained not to interfere in the disputed property of Khata No. 1359, area 2.5130 hectare during the pendency of the suit as mentioned in the order. Ag­grieved, the petitioners preferred two Mis­cellaneous Appeals under Order 41, Rule 1 (r) of the C.P.C. before the District Judge, Dehradun, which were ultimately heard and dismissed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court V, Dal-Aadun.
(3.) RELEVANT facts, giving rise to the present writ petition as emerges out from the record, in brief, according to the peti­tioners, are that late Sri Hakim alias Hakim Uddin was the husband of Smt. Jaitoon, who lateron married second time with the consent of his first wife with Smt. Jameela, the petitioner no. 1. Smt. Khatoon (sic) gave birth to five daughters, namely, Smt. Khatoon, Smt. Khurshida, Smt. Naseema, Smt. Sajida and Km. Sajida (sic). Said Hakim Uddin, who died on 17-2-2007, possessed two houses in village Jiwangarh. In one house, the peti­tioner no. 1 is residing, while in the other, Smt. Jaitoon is residing. Hakim Uddin allegedly executed a will in respect of his immovable property on 1-12-2006 thereby certain property was given to the petitioner no. 1 and the rest to his first wife-respond­ent Smt. Jaitoon. According to the plain­tiff-petitioner no. 1, she came to know that on the basis of a will allegedly executed dated 16-8-2002, name of Smt. Jaitoon has been recorded over the entire land in revenue record left by the deceased hus­band and the petitioner no. 1 also came to know that she has no rights over the immovable property of her deceased hus­band. The petitioner no. 1 filed Original Suit No. 572 of 2007 for permanent in­junction and also to declare the will in question to be null and void. Along with the suit, the petitioner no. 1 filed an ap­plication for temporary injunction (Paper no. 6-C).;