JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following relief, among others:- “Issue a suitable order or direction to setting aside impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 52 of 2016 (Annexure no. 6).” 2. It is a strange case in which the parents have filed a civil suit against their son and their daughter in law for retaining possession of their house. Plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants (respondents herein). Defendant no. 1 is the son of the petitioners/plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 is the daughter in law of the plaintiffs/petitioners. 3. The suit was filed on 27.6.2016 for restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property in any way. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), vide order dated 27.6.2016, fixed 11.7.2016 for disposal of temporary injunction application and objections thereon, and in the meanwhile restrained the son and daughter in law of the plaintiffs-parents from interfering in their property. 4. The relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants is admitted. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs executed a will in favour of their elder son and married daughter. As soon as the defendants came to know about the said will, they tried to encroach upon the house, which belongs to the plaintiffs. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a self acquired property. 6. Defendant no. 1 is stated to be living at 9, Ugra Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun. The address of the daughter in law-defendant no. 2 is shown as Ward no. 5, Balwant Colony, Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. 7. On 12.7.016, the defendant-respondent filed objections to application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC along with written statement. They also prayed for vacating the ad interim stay order. On 13.7.2016, Misc. Civil Appeal was filed by respondent no. 2 against the order dated 27.6.2016. 8. Vide order dated 13.7.2016, which is under challenge before this Court, the District Judge directed that the Misc. Civil Appeal be registered, notice be issued to the respondents, Misc. Civil Appeal be listed for hearing on 18.7.2016 and directed that the effect and operation of order dated 27.6.2016 is stayed upto 18.7.2016. 9. 2 against the order dated 27.6.2016. 8. Vide order dated 13.7.2016, which is under challenge before this Court, the District Judge directed that the Misc. Civil Appeal be registered, notice be issued to the respondents, Misc. Civil Appeal be listed for hearing on 18.7.2016 and directed that the effect and operation of order dated 27.6.2016 is stayed upto 18.7.2016. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Uttaranchal & ant. vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish & ors, reported in 2011 (2) U.D. 143. It has been observed in the said decision that:- “15. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts’ clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system. 16. We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. 16. We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, although fairly conceded to the aforesaid proposition of law, that the District Judge ought to have passed a reasoned order while staying the effect and operation of the order passed by the Trial Court, but at the same time he also drew the attention of this Court towards section 2(f) and section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which are being reproduced herein below for convenience: “2(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shred household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; 2(s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.” 11. It is therefore the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that plaintiffs have no right to oust, at least, their daughter in law. 12. The Court is not deciding anything at present, in this writ petition. Suffice will it be to say that the order impugned is an unreasoned order, and therefore, can not sustain in the eye of law. 13. Writ petition is decided at the threshold by setting aside the order impugned. 12. The Court is not deciding anything at present, in this writ petition. Suffice will it be to say that the order impugned is an unreasoned order, and therefore, can not sustain in the eye of law. 13. Writ petition is decided at the threshold by setting aside the order impugned. The matter is remitted to the learned District Judge to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, after hearing learned counsel for the parties. 14. Parties shall appear before the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun, where the matter is now pending, on 22.02.2016, whereafter learned 4th Additional District Judge shall proceed with Misc. Civil Appeal, in the manner known to law, as expeditiously as possible. 15. Let copies of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.