Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioners are the defendants who assail the order passed by the learned appellate Court reversing the order of the learned trial Court refusing ad-interim injunction to the respondent-plaintiff. 2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit for injunction, out of which the present petition arises, restraining the petitioners personally or through their authorized persons from interfering in the property of the temple as described in the plaint and further from causing any obstruction in the religious ceremonies being performed in Shrikot Temple, Darbar premises and further restraining the defendants from carrying the Idol of the deity for Kedar Yatra. 3. The defendants denied these allegations and pleaded that a Committee had been constituted to manage the affairs of the deity and that one of them i.e. defendant No.5 is a hereditary priest and defendant No.6 is a hereditary Goor of Devta Shri Koteshwar Mahadev. It was also pleaded that the father of the plaintiff had been ousted from the Kumarsain Estate by his predecessor-in-interest as he had not obeyed the orders of the Devta Shri Koteshwar Mahadev. The plaintiff claimed exclusive management of the temple on the basis of the trust deed executed by Smt. Pritima and Smt. Rajeshwari, the daughters of late Rana Someshwar Singh, who had died on 28.11.1996. Both of them were married in Nepal. Kanwar Shamsher Singh plaintiff was appointed as its life time Chairman. The plaintiff also pleads that this temple in the Riyasat was exclusive property of the Ruler, who was the eldest member of the Royal family and who used to succeed to the throne was the only person who could enter the sanctum sanctorum (garabh greeh) and no other member of the family was allowed to enter this place. 4. The Courts below noted that the temple was completely gutted in fire and was rebuilt from the private donations etc. The learned trial Court on the material before it dismissed the application holding that the balance of convenience was in favour of the defendants, whereas the learned appellate court has reversed the judgment. 5. What I note at the outset is that the claim of the plaintiff is one of exclusive access to the deity and temple restricted to the members of the ruling family of Kumarsain, whereas the respondent claims the temple to be one where the public can visit freely without any let or hindrance. 5. What I note at the outset is that the claim of the plaintiff is one of exclusive access to the deity and temple restricted to the members of the ruling family of Kumarsain, whereas the respondent claims the temple to be one where the public can visit freely without any let or hindrance. In other words the question to be determined is as to whether the temple falls within the ambit of a Public Religious and Endowment within the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The two Courts below have fallen into error in going into the entire details of the case at the initial stage and practically granting/denying a relief which would be the result of the final adjudication of the case. The fundamental and important question as to whether the temple is a public charity within the meaning of Section 92 CPC has not been touched at all by the Courts below. Both the Courts below were well advised to remember that it was dealing with a purported Public Religious Endowment and the balance of convenience was that of the General Public in case the temple had attributes of public charity. For this purpose, some prima facie inquiry was required to be conducted by the two Courts below to ascertain its user by the public as a matter of right or exclusive user by the Royal family and its descendants. In case of the former situation, the balance of convenience is obviously in favour of the general public, but, that in the latter, of the members of the founder. I find the judgments to be without any discussion on this point and in that event it was not open to the Courts to have granted interim directions. 6. In these circumstances, this case is remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the principle enshrined under Section 92 of CPC and then proceed further in the case. The Court shall also ensure the smooth worship of the deity, performance of ritual and other religious ceremonies required/prescribed. The order of both the Courts below are quashed and set aside. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.