JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal is directed against order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur, whereby, an application filed by respondent No.1 Shri Dadhimati Mataji Mandir Pranyas ('the Trust') has been allowed and the appellants have been restrained from stopping or interfering in the installation of gate at the temple and not to do so through their supporters as well. 2. The facts in brief are that the Trust filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint against the appellants from putting up gate at the temple situated at village Ghoth Manglod; it was, inter alia, claimed in the plaint that the Trust was registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and the Trust has the right to manage the temple and its property and under take renovation and other related activities; the temple has been declared a protected monument under the provisions of the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Antiquities Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961'); the Trust after taking permission from the Archaeological Department and keeping in view the ancient Architector of the temple, under the directions of the said Department has undertaken a renovation and the renovation of the hall is underway; the main gate from the sanctum sanctorum has been removed and to replace the said old gate a new gate has been procured by the Trust, which is to be placed at the old place and which is the right of the Trust; it was alleged that the defendant appellants have formed a illegal group and without seeking permission from the Archaeological Department they have brought a new gate for installation at the sanctum sanctorum and are attempting to install it, which was objected by the Trust; the defendant-appellants are bent upon installing the said gate by taking law in their own hands, regarding which, they have no right. It is prayed that the defendants be permanently restrained from installing the gate without taking permission from the plaintiff and to restrain them from interfering with the Trust's right to install the gate. 3. An application seeking temporary injunction was also filed alongwith the said suit seeking injunction in the same nature as the relief in the main suit. 4. It is prayed that the defendants be permanently restrained from installing the gate without taking permission from the plaintiff and to restrain them from interfering with the Trust's right to install the gate. 3. An application seeking temporary injunction was also filed alongwith the said suit seeking injunction in the same nature as the relief in the main suit. 4. A reply was filed by the appellants, inter alia, questioning the right of the Trust to manage the temple and pointing out that against the registration of the Trust a writ petition was pending consideration before this Court; it was pointed out that though the temple is a protected monument, it was denied that the Trust has under taken the renovation of the main temple; it was further pointed out that on 20.02.2006 a joint meeting was held at the District Headquarter, in which, 13 Members of Chokhala Samaj and 13 Members of Dayama Samaj were nominated for the renovation of the temple; the nature of the temple is public and to claim that the temple belongs to the Dadhich Brahman Samaj is against facts; it was claimed that the gate, which has been got prepared by the appellants is similar to the old gate and, photographs in this regard, were placed on record; it was necessary to install the gate as in absence whereof the temple was not safe; further averments were made to indicate that the appellants were in possession of the temple premises; it was also pointed out that a suit for declaration being Civil Original Suit No.53/2001 was filed by the Trust and the said suit was dismissed in default and, therefore, the present suit was barred by provisions of Section 11 CPC. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. Reply to the temporary injunction application was also filed and it was denied that the Trust has any right to seek injunction against the appellants and that the appellants have the right to install the gate. 6. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. Reply to the temporary injunction application was also filed and it was denied that the Trust has any right to seek injunction against the appellants and that the appellants have the right to install the gate. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial court has granted the final relief as prayed in the suit at the interim stage and the same would lead to miscarriage of justice; it was submitted that the relief of injunction is a relief in equity and as the Trust has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, the application was liable to be dismissed on this count alone. It was submitted that the Trust has claimed the temple as its private temple in para 3 of the plaint, which is contrary to its own stand wherein an agreement dated 20.02.2006 was entered into in the presence of the District Collector, it has been specifically admitted by the Trust that the temple was a public trust and, as such, the foundation of the entire suit gives way and, consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed. It was further submitted that a simple suit for injunction has been filed without seeking declaration and in absence whereof, the said suit was not maintainable; the order impugned has been passed without consideration of the material facts and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that several pleas now sought to be raised in the appeal were not raised either in the reply or in the arguments before the learned trial court and, therefore, the appellants cannot be permitted to raise the said issue now. It was submitted that the issue relating to maintainability also besides the fact that the same was not raised before the learned trial court, cannot be examined at the stage of application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. It was submitted that the Trust having been granted permission by the Archaeological Department is well within its right to install the new gate, in any case, the appellants have no right to usurp the said right and install the gate only with a view to create a dispute at the site. It was submitted that the Trust having been granted permission by the Archaeological Department is well within its right to install the new gate, in any case, the appellants have no right to usurp the said right and install the gate only with a view to create a dispute at the site. It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court was justified in passing the order impugned. 8. I have considered the rival submissions by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is not in dispute that the temple in question is a protected monument under the provisions of Act of 1961. The said aspect is admitted by both the parties and besides the same while the Trust has sought permission from the Archaeological Department for undertaking the renovation work, the appellants themselves, who claim to be part of Shri Dadhimati Sewa Pooja Archana Samiti, Ghoth Manglod have also by their letter dated 08.07.2010 applied to the Archaeological Department for permission to set up gate and to undertake some other renovation. The Superintendent of the said Department by his letter dated 14.01.2011 called upon them to produce a detailed plan, which was again replied by the said Samiti on 08.04.2011. The Trust has relied on a permission dated 22.01.2005 issued by the Archaeological Department for undertaking the renovation work. However, as to what renovation work was permitted to be undertaken by the Archaeological Department vide its permission dated 22.01.2005 is not clear as the said permission merely indicates that the development project filed by the Samiti is permitted to be undertaken. 10. However, as to what renovation work was permitted to be undertaken by the Archaeological Department vide its permission dated 22.01.2005 is not clear as the said permission merely indicates that the development project filed by the Samiti is permitted to be undertaken. 10. The learned trial court while deciding the prima facie case has concluded as under:- " bl laca/k esa geus nLrkostkr dk voyksdu fd;k jktLFkku ljdkj ds dyk laLd`fr ,oa iqjkrRo foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj fnukad 22-10-2003 ds jkti= esa izdk'ku vuqlkj nf/kefr ekrkth eafnj xksB ekaxyksn dks iqjkrRo egRo dk gksus ls jf{kr Lekjd ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS] ftl eafnj ds th.kksZnkj dh vuqefr eafnj izU;kl }kjk ekaxs tkus ij dk;kZy;] funs'kd iqjkrRo ,oa laxzgky; foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj us vius i= dzekad iqa0lqa0@rd@05@818 fnukad 22-1-2005 }kjk Jh enu yky bZukf.k;ka v/;{k] insu Jh nf/kefr ekrkth eafnj izU;kl lfefr] tkV ds dqa, dk jkLrk] pkUniksy] cktkj t;iqj dks eafnj dk th.kksZ}kj djus dh l'krZ vuqefr nh gqbZ gSA vr% gekjh fouez jk; esa eafnj dk th.ksZ}kj djus dk ,dek= vf/kdkj eafnj izU;kl dks gh gS fdlh vU; O;fDr }kjk viuh euethZ ls eafnj esa fdlh Hkh rjg dk fuekZ.k vFkok vU; dksbZ th.kksZ}kj dk;Z ugha djok;k tk ldrk ,oa u gh eafnj izU;kl viuk fof/kd izHkko j[krk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa izU;kl dh lgefr ds fcuk vizkFkhZx.k vius gkFk esa eafnj esa xsV yxkus ds dk;Z dks ugha ys ldrs tc rd fd izU;kl mldh lgefr vFkok vuqefr u nsA blh izdkj vizkFkhZx.k dks izU;kl ds izcU/k esa ck/kk Mkyus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij orZeku okn dh fLFkfr izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa lkfcr gksuk ikbZ tkrh gSA " 11. From the above, it is apparent that based on the permission granted in the year 2005, the learned trial court came to a prima facie conclusion that the Trust alone has the right to undertaken the renovation work. The other aspect which has weighed with the learned trial court is the fact that the Trust was registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Pubic Trust, which in the opinion of the learned trial court ipso facto authorise the Trust to undertaken the said installation of the gate. 12. The other aspect which has weighed with the learned trial court is the fact that the Trust was registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Pubic Trust, which in the opinion of the learned trial court ipso facto authorise the Trust to undertaken the said installation of the gate. 12. As noticed above, the permission dated 21.01.2005 granted by the Archaeological Department to the Trust was regarding the development project by the said Trust, however, alongwith the said permission the proposed development project was not placed by the plaintiff before the learned trial court and, therefore, it was incumbent on the learned trial court to ascertain as to whether the permission to install gate was also included in the said development project and the permission, which was granted almost eight years back could still be valid and whether the same can be relied on for all future development projects. 13. The application made by the appellants before the Archaeological Department was specifically made for the purpose of installing the gate and it appears that no decision has been taken by the Archaeological Department either on account of same having not been pursued by the appellants or on account of pendency of the present litigation. However, the said documents filed by the appellants have not been taken into consideration. 14. In view of the fact that there is no dispute about the temple being a protected monument and the authority of Archaeological Department to grant permission for renovation of the said protected monument and the apparent dispute arising regarding the two set of gates having been prepared by both the sides and conflicting claims about the gate prepared by the appellants being similar to that of the old gate, the only appropriate authority to resolve the dispute in this regard would be the Director, Archaeological Department. 15. 15. So far as the issue regarding the right of the Trust to manage and undertake the renovation of the work on account of its registration with the Devasthan Department is concerned, the fact that the same is being questioned by the appellants based on the previous litigations having been filed by the Trust; said suits having been dismissed in default; the same operating as res judicata and the fact that an agreement dated 17.02.2006 was executed and in pursuance thereof Jirnodhar Samiti was constituted on 20.02.2006, comprising of 13 persons each from Chokhla Mandal and Dayama (Dadhich) Samaj, empowering it to overlook the renovation work of the temple, the learned trial court without prima facie dealing with the same aspects could not have arrived at the conclusion about right of the Trust. 16. In that view of the matter, it would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, both the parties are directed to approach Director, Archaeological Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur regarding the issue as to whether the installing of gate is part of the permission granted way back on 22.01.2005; whether the appellants are entitled to permission to install the gate, which application filed by them appears to be still pending; which of the gate prepared by the parties is similar to the old gate and subject to the entitlement to put up the gate to be decided by the trial court, which of the gate should be installed. On the parties approaching the said authority, the authority is directed to decide the said aspect within a period of two months. Thereafter, taking into consideration the finding of the said authority, which finding would be open to scrutiny by the trial court, the trial court would decide the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the Trust afresh and till the application is decided by the trial court, the parties shall maintain status quo. 17. All the other aspects raised by the appellants appears to have not been raised before the trial court. However, it would be open for the appellants to raise all the issues before the trial court. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. 17. All the other aspects raised by the appellants appears to have not been raised before the trial court. However, it would be open for the appellants to raise all the issues before the trial court. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the trial court is set aside and the parties are directed to approach the Director, Archaeological Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur in terms of the directions issued hereinbefore and after determination made by the Director, the trial court would decide the application afresh as expeditiously as possible and till the disposal of the said application, the parties shall maintain status quo.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******