Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1479 (HP)

Jai Ram Sharma v. Rajender Pal

2018-08-08

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - One Shankar Singh, and, one Rajender Pal, instituted a suit under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, espousing therein, relief for removal of one Mahant Nand Lal, alias, Ganga Ram, from, the office of Vahetman/ Manager, of, Mandir Thakurdawara Sita Ramji situated at Village Bari Majherwan, Prgana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., and, his removal was espoused for hence ensuring, the, proper management, of, the temple, and, its funds. However, the mandate, of, clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 91 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "91. Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public.--- [(1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted,- (a) By the Advocate-General, or (b) With the leave of the court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions." rather rendered the suit to be maintainable, only, upon an apt leave being accorded by the civil court, and, also enjoined, its, being instituted, by two or more persons. A perusal of the order sheet, recorded by the learned trial Court, on 22.02.2005, unfolds qua the apposite application preferred therebefore, by the co-plaintiffs, being allowed, and, a reading thereof, also brings forth the factum of the trial Court also concluding qua the suit property being public property, and, the suit being instituted, by the coplaintiffs, in a representative capacity, obviously, for the betterment, and, protection of the charitable endowment. A further reading of the order of 22.02.2005, unfolds, qua the statutory leave hence standing granted by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis, the co-plaintiffs, also does hence underscore the factum, of, the co-plaintiffs, rather, instituting the suit, in, an apt representative capacity. 2. A further reading of the order of 22.02.2005, unfolds, qua the statutory leave hence standing granted by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis, the co-plaintiffs, also does hence underscore the factum, of, the co-plaintiffs, rather, instituting the suit, in, an apt representative capacity. 2. Further, during the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit instituted, apparently, in an apt representative capacity by the co-plaintiffs, one of the co-plaintiffs, namely one Shankar Singh hence died issueless, and, also defendant No.1 Mahant Nand Lal, hence expired, (a) thereupon, hence a prayer was made for the deletion, of, the name of co-plaintiff No.1 Shankar Singh, and, for the substitution in his place, of, the applicants, in, the array, of, co-plaintiffs, besides the applicants sought relief, for substitution, in the array, of, defendants, of, deceased codefendant No.1 Mahant Nand Lal, by his legal heirs. Even though, the aforesaid application, was contested by the defendants, yet the learned trial Court, pronounced affirmative orders thereon. The defendants being aggrieved therefrom, hence, institute the instant petition before this Court. 3. As aforestated, the suit being instituted, in, an apt representative capacity, thereupon, for ensuring qua the holistic purpose, embodied therein, rather being not defeated nor frustrated, (i) whereas, the apt ill events qua hence its standing abated, rather would inevitably ensue, upon, the apposite motion standing declined, thereupon, it would not be sagacious for this Court, to reverse the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. In sequel, the instant petition is dismissed, and, the order impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 29th August, 2018. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.