ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1.

2. Following two substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the appeal:-

“1 Whether the decree passed by courts below is sustainable u/s 36A of Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1947?”

“2 Whether the courts below were correct in issuing injunction against Appellant who is co-owner of Gat No. 347?”

3. Appellant herein is the original Defendant and Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as “Plaintiff” and “Defendant”.

4. Plaintiff filed a suit in the Civil Court for an order of injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with her possession. Trial Court decreed the suit and injunction was also granted in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from interfering with her possession. Against this judgment and decree, Defendant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. The order passed by the trial court was not stayed during pendency of appeal. Appeal was finally dismissed.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf