JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J.: The plaintiffs/appellants, having lost in both the Courts below, are in second appeal before this Court. The parties in the judgment, hereinafter, would be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants, 2. The dispute pertains to a MATH which is said to be a Dhoona of Sadhus where exists a temple and a Dharamshala. The plaintiffs chimed a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession over the temple, Dhoona and Dharamshala In the alternative, adverse possession was also claimed. Mutation in the same of defendant No.4, i.e., Municipal Corporation, was also challenged as net binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 was earlier serving in the Indian Institute of Advance Study, Shimla, from where he was dismissed and severe cases were pending against him. Defendant No.2 is said to have illegally formed a society for the management of the temple and defendant No.4 has executed lease deed in favour of defendant No.2 without any right or authority and the said lease is said to be not binding on the plaintiffs. 3. Dhoona Baba Bankhandi Girji Maharaj is plaintiff No. 1 and the suit is filed through Baba Nihal Gir, who has also been impleaded as plaintiff No.2. 4. Defendant No. l is the committee for the management of the temple and defendant No.2 is Hira Gir, who is alleged to have obtained lease fraudulently in his favour from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which is defendant No.4. Defendant No.3, Raghunth Singh, is said to be the owner of the site at one point of time. 5. The defendants, while resisting the suit, have come with the plea that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not in possession of &e suit premises. They are said to have no concern with the temple and the lease executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.2 is said to have been rightly executed. Defendants No. l and 2 have claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit premises and the counter-claim- has also been filed by them that the Institution is under their management and control and the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the suit property and injunction has beep claimed by these defendants against the plaintiffs restraining them from interfering in the suit property. 6. 6. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, held under issue No.8 that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit land, therefore, suit for permanent injunction filed as such is not maintainable. It has also been held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the suit property. Resultantly, the suit was ordered to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs laying challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court stands dismissed. 7. Kanwar Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, while opening arguments, submits that defendants No.3 and 4 were exparte before the learned trial court. Nothing has been brought on record as to how the Municipal Corporation came to take over the suit property and further leased it out to defendant No.2. 8. It is further submitted that defendant No.2 in order to grab the property of the MATH got manoeuvred lease deed in his favour from the Municipal Corporation and has also created false evidence to show his possession over the suit property and defendant No. 1 is a creation of the evil designs of defendant No.2, who is said to be a person with bad record and has been convicted by courts of law and does not deserve to claim himself to have any right, title or interest in the Institution.. 9. Mr. Kanwar further contends that the learned courts below have mis-read, mis-construed and misinterpreted the oral as well as the documentary evidence placed on record and the same has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. 10. The contention is that the plaintiffs have successfully proved that they are in possession of the suit property. There are electricity bills and several other correspondence between the Corporation and the plaintiffs on the strength of which the plaintiffs have to be held to be in possession of the suit land and there is a presumption of continuity in respect of their possession unless it is proved that they have been dispossessed from the suit land by some order or direction or following due process of law. My attention has been, particularly, drawn to the statements made by PW-7 as well as DW-1, besides several other documents comprising electricity bills and correspondence. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for defendants No. l and 2, Mr. My attention has been, particularly, drawn to the statements made by PW-7 as well as DW-1, besides several other documents comprising electricity bills and correspondence. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for defendants No. l and 2, Mr. S.S. Kanwar, while, in reply, has adopted the same reasonings, as are projected in the impugned judgments and decrees. It is further submitted that no case has been made out for misreading or mis-construction or mis-interpretation of any piece of evidence and pure and simple concurrent findings of fact stand record against the plaintiffs and, these findings have not to be disturbed in second appeal by this Court. My attention has been brought by Mr. Kanwar to the lease deed, electricity bills and other documents on the strength of which it is sought to be argued that it is the defendants and not the plaintiffs who are in the management, control and possession of the temple and its property and, thus, a suit for injunction stands rightly dismissed, as not maintainable. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record as well as the impugned judgments, I find that the claim putforth by the plaintiffs is that some gift was made by the owner in favour Baba Bankhandi somewhere in the year 1914. It is stated by plaintiff No. himself that Baba dankhandi remained in the possession, control and management of the temple for a pretty long time and died about 26-27 years whereafter, the plaintiffs took over the management and control and have been. In possession of the temple and its properties and have been managing the same. On plaintiff No.2 own showing that defendant No.2 was adopted by him as his Chela and he used to represent plaintiff No.2 in various departments by moving applications, affidavits etc. and at no point of time he asserted his own right, title or interest in any capacity whatsoever. 13. It is really strange to see that defendant No.3 has not contested the claim of the plaintiffs, though in the record his name appears as owner. On a perusal of the record it can be safely inferred that a Dhoona was in existence from a pretty long time and thereafter a temple has been raised as well as a Dbaramshala. It is really strange to see that defendant No.3 has not contested the claim of the plaintiffs, though in the record his name appears as owner. On a perusal of the record it can be safely inferred that a Dhoona was in existence from a pretty long time and thereafter a temple has been raised as well as a Dbaramshala. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that plaintiff Nihal Gir had some connection with the Institution, as notices were sent to him for having raised unauthorised structure. The matter was reported to the police also. It, thus, cannot be said that the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the suit property. Admittedly, the electricity connection was in his name. The same was disconnected later and then defendant No.2 managed to get it in his name. The formation of the Committee, defendant No. 1, is of a very recent origin. It can be presumed that the same is handy work and creation of defendant No.2. From the mutation which was carried oat, in favour of the Municipal Corporation, it appears that the suit land was acquired by the State possibly for widening the road, but the scheme to have been abandoned. Be that as it may. But the Municipal Corporation issued notices to plaintiff No.2 to get the lease deed executed in his favour. Plaintiff No.2 contested those notices. Appeal was also filed, but defendant No.2 managed to get the lease deed in his favour from the Municipal Corporation. 14. How the Municipal Corporation came to take over the possession of the site, though, in papers only, is a question m ark, which has not been answered in the suit. It is really surprising to see that the Municipal Corporation was proceeded exparte and no evidence has been led by it to prove its right, title or interest in the suit property. In this Court also, no assistance has been provided to the Court by the learned counsel for the Corporation to find out as to what is the true and correct position. No document has been placed on record to show the notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or proceedings taken in sequence of it. 15. The reading of the statement of DW-1, who was examined on behalf of the defendants, makes out an interesting story. No document has been placed on record to show the notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or proceedings taken in sequence of it. 15. The reading of the statement of DW-1, who was examined on behalf of the defendants, makes out an interesting story. He is an Inspector from the Municipal Corporation of Shimla. As per his statement, the temple exists prior to 1970. According to the records maintained in the Committee, a report was made that Baba Nihal Gir had raised two RCC pillars un-authorisedly and proceedings be taken against him under section 269 (2) and (3)of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act. ExtPX-1 was issued in this respect. It is stated by him that the lease of the land was granted to Baba Nihal Gir only till the lease Ext.D.1 came to be executed in favour of defendant No. 1. According to him, proceedings which were taken against Nihal Gir, his Chela was appearing in the case. The copy of the order is Ext. PX-2. It is also said by him that there is no such record in the office of the Corporation in respect of the acquisition made in the year 1964 nor there is any document showing the taking over the possession of the suit property by the Corporation. It is also said by him that no ejectment proceedings were taken against Nihal Gir from the suit land till the execution of the lease Ext.-D-l. Towards the end of his statement, it is recorded that as per record, which he had brought from the year 1984-87, the work of the temple construction was being carried out by Baba Nihal Gir and the Corporation was corresponding with him only. It is also said by him that the Municipal Corporation never delivered any possession to Hira Gir, defendant, in sequence of the lease-deeds Ext.D-1 and 0-2. 16. Both the learned courts below have not cared to examine as to how and in what capacity defendant No.2 came in possession of the suit property. According to plaintiff No.2, defendant No.2 was made his chela, but appears to be a person of shady past and was not a proper person to have been entrusted the affairs of the temple. Both the learned courts below have not cared to examine as to how and in what capacity defendant No.2 came in possession of the suit property. According to plaintiff No.2, defendant No.2 was made his chela, but appears to be a person of shady past and was not a proper person to have been entrusted the affairs of the temple. Reference can also usefully be made to an affidavit, Ext.PJ, which was filed by defendant No.2 in connection with some bio-gas plant at Karnal, wherein he has described himself to be the chela of plaintiff No.2, Baba Nihal Gir. Be mat as it may. No issue in this respect was framed whether defendant No.2 is the chela of plaintiff No.2 or not There is issue No.6 as to whether defendant No.2 was turned out from the Ashram on account of his having misappropriated huge amount of the Ashram. No clear cut finding on this issue has been recorded by the learned trial court and issues No.2,3,4,5 and 7 were jumbled up together and decided under one heading. 17. Though, there is a reference that defendant No.2 was involved in F.I.R. Ext.PW-4/A, a case was registered against him under sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code resulting in his conviction by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, but that is the effect of all these materials, has not been made clear in the impugned judgments. 18. Again, the learned trial court has not clearly dealt with the counterclaim filed by the defendants. The learned courts below appear to have held defendant No.2 in possession of the suit property on the strength of the lease deeds dated 6th of February, 1987, Ext.D-1, and 26th of June.1987, Ext.D.2. DW-1 has categorically stated that defendant No.2 was not put in possession of the premises on the basis of these lease deeds. That is not his case, as has been set out-by defendant No.2, who came to be in possession, management and control of the temple much earlier. The electricity bills and payments made by the plaintiffs prove that the temple was in the name of Nihal Gir, plaintiff No.2, till 1986, when the electricity meter was disconnected, the learned appellate Court has dealt with this aspect in para 32 of the impugned judgment. The electricity bills and payments made by the plaintiffs prove that the temple was in the name of Nihal Gir, plaintiff No.2, till 1986, when the electricity meter was disconnected, the learned appellate Court has dealt with this aspect in para 32 of the impugned judgment. Once it has been so observed, it was the duty of the Court to have found out as to how Baba Nihal Gir was dispossessed and by what procedure or on the strength of what evidence defendant No.2 came to occupy the premises and started managing the same. 19. In view of what has been said above, I am of the considered view that the matter needs re-examination by the learned trial court. The impugned judgments and decree, consequently, are ordered to be set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the same afresh. All out efforts should be made to inquire about the history of the temple, its various incumbents, about its management and control from time to time and also as to how the Government or the Corporation came to exercise the rights of lessor in aspect of the suit property. A direction is also issued to the respondent-Municipal Corporation to make available to the learned trial court the entire relevant record in order to reach a just decision. I have purposely restrained myself from making any observations on the merits of the case, lest it may amount to an expression of opinion on merits. 20. The learned trial Court would also provide further such opportunities to the parties to examine evidence and place such other material on the record which they desire to place in the light of the observations made above. Not more than three opportunities each should be granted to the parties and if the evidence is not closed in the schedule, the evidence of that party shall be deemed to be closed by an order of the Court Efforts should be made to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within one year from today. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned counsel are directed-to appear before the learned trial Court on January 15th, 1997. Records are ordered to be scat back forthwith. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Costs to follow events.