Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 463 (HP)

Vishal Sharma v. Himalayan Brahma Samaj

2014-04-25

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Challenge herein is to the order dated 22.8.2012 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in an application under Section 151 CPC filed in Civil Suit No.9-S/1 of 2009, declining thereby the prayer qua issuance of a direction to the respondents-plaintiffs to open the lock of Brahamo Samaj Temple and keep the same unlocked to enable the followers of the Brahamo Samaj to perform ‘Pooja’ and other ceremonies in the temple premises. 2. In reply to the application, the stand of the respondents-plaintiffs is that the filing of the application and seeking permission to unlock the temple premises is a colourful move on the part of the imposters to gain entry to the trust property in the garb of the alleged prayer qua performing ‘Pooja’ and solemnization of other ceremonies. 3. Learned Court below, after noticing the averments in the application and the reply filed thereto has dismissed the application with the following observations:- “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the filed with care. On behalf of the plaintiffs, copy of order dated 16.08.2011 of the Hon’ble high Court passed in OMP No. 294/11 in Civil Suit No.61 of 2011, titled as Himalaya Brahmo Samaj and others vs. Ran Kumar Bhardwaj and others, has been filed Raj Kumar Bhardwaj, Vishal Sharma, Karam Chand Bhatia, Anil Sood, Pyare Lal, Surinder Sharma, are all parties to that suit. The Hon’ble High Court has restrained them from interfering in the suit property. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid suit is also pertaining to the suit property mentioned above. In view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the present applications cannot be allowed. Otherwise, the same would amount to clear contempt of the said order. Both the applications are dismissed. It be tagged with the main suit.” 4. On behalf of the petitioners-defendants, learned Senior Advocate has urged that the application could have not been dismissed on the sole ground of there being interim order passed by this Court in the main suit during the pendency thereof in this Court and before its transfer to the Court below consequent upon the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. 5. On behalf of the petitioners-defendants, learned Senior Advocate has urged that the application could have not been dismissed on the sole ground of there being interim order passed by this Court in the main suit during the pendency thereof in this Court and before its transfer to the Court below consequent upon the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs while supporting the impugned order has come forward with the version that in the suit, which has only been filed for seeking permission to sell the property belonging to respondent No.1-trust, the rights of the petitioners-defendants, if any, to perform ‘Pooja’ or solemnize any other ceremonies in the temple premises could have not been adjudicated upon. 6. Learned Senior Advocate has also stated at the Bar that every year the temple premises remain open from the month of May to December, between 8.30 to 10.30 a.m., on each and every Sunday and that the petitioners-defendants are free to join the prayers and perform ‘Pooja’. This Court has also been informed that on few occasions the petitioners-defendants have even been seen also in the temple premises offering prayer and performing ‘Pooja’. 7. Having gone through the record and taking into consideration the submissions made on both sides, I find considerable force in the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners-defendants that the application could have not been dismissed on the sole ground that in view of there being interim order that the parties shall maintain status quo qua the suit property passed by this Court in the main suit, no direction in the interim as sought can be passed for the reasons that the trial Court being the competent Court, seized of the suit on enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, could have altered or modified the interim order so passed by this Court before transfer the main suit to the Court below. The submissions made on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs that in a suit where only the permission to sell the property belonging to respondent No.1-trust has been sought, the rights of the petitioners-defendants of performing ‘Pooja’ and solemnization of other ceremonies cannot be determined, also find considerable force for the reason that no such right can be adjudicated upon in a suit of this nature. The petitioners-defendants rather are at liberty to get such right, if any, determined in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law, if so advised. 8. Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners-defendants is fair enough in submitting that the temple premises remain open during the month of May to December on every Sunday between 8.30 to 10.30 a.m. Therefore, the claim as laid by the petitioners-defendants that the temple is not open for performing ‘Pooja’ by them and other followers i.e. members of the Brahamo Samaj, has no legs to stand and rather seems to be not genuine. 9. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed and stand disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.