Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 601 (HP)

Prabhat Sharma v. Ashutosh Sharma

2018-04-10

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The instant petition stands directed against the impugned order recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Bilaspur, H.P., on 26.03.2016, whereby, she allowed, the petitioner''s application, constituted under Section 151 of the CPC, wherein, he sought, relief of the Deputy Commissioner Temple Trust Sh. Naina Devi Ji, Bilaspur being directed to implement orders rendered by this Court in OMP No. 392 of 1987. The genesis of the lis, is, embodied in a pronouncement recorded on 17.10.1987, by this Court in OMP No.392 of 1987, the relevant apt portion whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- " In view of the aforesaid agreement arrived at between the parties, it is ordered that the amounts be paid to all the Bhojkis/plaintiffs, who may be interest in receiving the amount in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Deputy Commissioner., Bilaspur. The Bhojkis/persons entitled to receive the amounts can receive these amounts under protest and defendant No.1 shall have no objection in making the payments to these persons under protest. It is clarified that receiving of the payments by such persons shall not at all prejudice their rights to the merits of the case and there payments shall be subject to the final adjudication of the case. It is further ordered that defendant No.1 shall maintain a record about the names of various Pujaris/Bhojkis who act in the temple on specified periods, so that the amounts payable to them or to any other Bhojaki/Pujari may be adjusted subject to the result of the suit. The amounts shall be disbursed to the various persons within a period of one week from today. The present application is disposed of accordingly." 2. A reading of the afore extracted pronouncement recorded, upon, the aforesaid OMP, brings to the fore qua disbursement(s) of relevant amounts amongst the Bhojakis, of, the temple concerned, being mandated to occur in accordance with the scheme formulated, by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. Consequently, with this Court, in, making a pronouncement upon OMP No.392 of 1987, hence meteing reverence thereto, thereupon, it is deemed incumbent to allude to the apposite scheme. The apt scheme is appended, as, Ex. P-6 in Civil Suit No. 17-1 of 95/87, and, the operative part thereof, stands, extracted hereinafter: "....... So I feel that equal distribution of 50% of offerings to all the Pujaris who have been recorded in the record of rights should go. The apt scheme is appended, as, Ex. P-6 in Civil Suit No. 17-1 of 95/87, and, the operative part thereof, stands, extracted hereinafter: "....... So I feel that equal distribution of 50% of offerings to all the Pujaris who have been recorded in the record of rights should go. This should be limited only to cash offerings, coconuts and ghee. Gold, Silver and Chunnis cannot be given to them because those offered to the deity by the pilgrims/devotees out of respect. If those are given to the Pujaris, the sentiments of the devotee who offer those to the deity will be shattered. I, therefore, order that because of the fact that they are performing Puja Archana they should be given 50% offerings of cash in equal shares. Apart from that the coconuts and Ghee should be converted into money and 50% of the total should be distributed amongst all the Pujaris. The Baridars/Pujaris have demanded the payment with retrospective effect from the date when the management was taken over by the trust. For their claim they had represented to Sh. I.K/ Suri, IAS (Ret.) , the then Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, but before Mr. Suri decided anything they went in the Hon''ble High Court. The application of Bardar/Pujaris received by me on the 4th March, 1987. So question of giving them their shares from retrospective effect does not arise. However, the Bridar/Pujaris had given a representation to Sh. I.K. Suri, the then Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. When they could not get any relief, they preferred to file a writ petition in the Hon''ble High Court. Form the day they went to the Hon''ble High Court, the relief accrues to them. So, I order that they will get their share from the date they filed writ petition in the Hon''ble High Court. 10. With regard issue No.4, I hold that in the modern age I have discussion above, the Baridar/Pujaris have violated the Rules, and the small girls who were getting offering from the Kali Mata Temple have got no right because already the Pujaris will get offerings from deity Sh. Naina Devi Ji as per the norms I have ordered above. Another contention that the girls should be given share upto their marriage is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Naina Devi Ji as per the norms I have ordered above. Another contention that the girls should be given share upto their marriage is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As a matter of fact, if that right is given that cannot be withdrawn back and that will go as dowry which is against the present social system. Their further contention was that the moment a boy attains the age of 18 years, he should be given the right of Baridari-system. Because of may discussion above, it will be unfair to create further Pujaris 11. This order of mine will be operative for 15 years from the date of announcement. The distribution of offerings should take place every quarter. The Assistant Commissioner (SDM Bilaspur) , who is the chairman of the Temple Trust will take action as per above decisions. This order should be communicated to all the three groups of Pujaris through the Assistant Commissioner (SDM Bilaspur) ." A reading of the operative part thereof, unravels, of, its (a) containing a clear mandate, of its, operation surviving upto 15 years, period whereof being computable, from, the date of its pronouncement, pronouncement whereof, occurred, on 15.05.1987, (b) hence, within its mandate, remaining in force for 15 years, thereupon, its mandate apparently remained alive only upto May, 2002, yet thereafter evidently it without demur remained in operation, upto 4.7.2011, whereat the apposite civil suit was dismissed in default. 3. Be that as it may, Civil suit No. 117/1 of 09/87, was, dismissed for default on 4.7.2011, and, was restored on 19.05.2015. The interregnum, inter se the dismissal in default of the apposite civil suit, and, its coming to be restored, also per se comprises an apt period, wherewithin, the orders pronounced upon OMP No.392 of 1987, remained obviously hence not in force, nor were binding upon the contesting parties, to the apposite lis. The interregnum, inter se the dismissal in default of the apposite civil suit, and, its coming to be restored, also per se comprises an apt period, wherewithin, the orders pronounced upon OMP No.392 of 1987, remained obviously hence not in force, nor were binding upon the contesting parties, to the apposite lis. Before proceeding to dwell, upon, infraction, if any, by respondent No.6 herein, the imperative fact, which is enjoined to be borne in mind, (a) is of as aforestated the longevity of the apposite scheme, whereto reverence stood meted by this Court, in making a pronouncement, upon OMP No. 392 of 1987, rather holding longevity only upto 15 years, (b) and also qua the factum, of its, in the interregnum inter se the dismissal in default of the apposite Civil Suit, and, upto its restoration, its obviously holding no force, (c) ultimately, of, the innate spirit, of, the orders rendered upon CWP No.6819 of 2014, is, also enjoined to be incisively discerned, (d) significantly, when mandate thereof is alleged to be intentionally infringed. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid factum rather would aid this Court, in coming to a conclusion qua any purported deviations or any purported intentional infringements thereof, hence emanating, whereupon alone respondent No.6 herein would hence be rendered amenable to make compliance therewith. Obviously, thereupon, it is apt for this Court, to hereinafter extract, the relevant portion of the orders, pronounced, by this Court, upon CWP No.6819 of 2014:- "The petitioners are permitted to move an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in Civil Suit No. 117/1/2-9/87 within a period of three weeks from today. The application shal be decided by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) , Bilaspur, in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. It is stated by the respondents appearing in thi petition that they would not oppose such an application as and when moved. Sh. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the orders in the interregnum, only when Civil Suit was dismissed n default and not it has been revived. Till the application is decided by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division) , Bilaspur, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Sh. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the orders in the interregnum, only when Civil Suit was dismissed n default and not it has been revived. Till the application is decided by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division) , Bilaspur, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) , Bilaspur, Shall pass the necessary orders, as warranted from time to time, in accordance with law." A perusal of the apt underlined portion thereof, makes, ex-facie disclosure(s) of this Court making direction(s) (a) that till the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) , Bilaspur, makes a decision upon an application cast under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, thereupto the parties being enjoined, to maintain status quo; (b) and, after the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) , proceeding to make an order upon an application cast under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, his being enjoined to pass appropriate orders , as warranted, from time to time, in accordance with law, apt underlined portion whereof, for reasons assigned hereinafter, rather holds has immense significance. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the parlance, gathered by the apt coinage "status quo" occurring in the orders supra, pronounced by this Court in CWP No.6819 of 2014, hence carrying, an innate import besides significance (a) of an injunction being cast upon the respondents/defendants, to continue to mete deference, to the pronouncement recorded by this Court, upon, OMP No. 392 of 1987, (b) importantly when the apposite disbursement, of, funds amongst the Bhojakis, of, the temple concerned, continued to be made in consonance therewith, upto the institution of CWP No.6819. 4. 4. However, the aforesaid submission, is grossly off the mark, and, its vigour stands denuded, by the trite factum (a) of the apposite civil suit, during, pendency whereof OMP bearing No. 392 of 1987, stood constituted before this Court, whereupon, this Court had rendered orders supra, rather standing dismissed in default on 4.7.2011, and, it standing ordered to be restored only on 19.05.2015, Ib) whereas, CWP No.6819 of 2014, coming to be instituted, prior to, the restoration of Civil Suit No. 17/1 of 2009/1987, (c) given this Court, while, making a pronouncement upon OMP No. 392 of 1987, rather meteing deference, to, the apposite scheme, longevity whereof, was, only upto 15 years, 15 years whereof, since, its commencement on 15.5.1987, rather elapsed in the month of May, 2002, hence rendered capacitated, the defendants/respondents, to hence formulate, a new scheme, and, place it before the learned Court concerned, for enabling it, to, make a fresh pronouncement(s) in consonance therewith, besides for its being concomitantly enabled to make orders, for, extending the operation of orders rendered in OMP No.392 of 1987, (d) more so when the apt aforesaid underlined portion, of, orders pronounced upon CWP No.6819 of 2014, obviously facilitated apposite motions, being made before the Civil Court (e) especially also given its longevity, being co terminus with the scheme, whereto, deference was meted by this Court, while rendering directions, upon, OMP No.392 of 1987. However, it appears that since the apposite Civil Suit was dismissed in default, hence, the defendants/ contemners/respondents herein, omitted to make apposite motions, before, the Court concerned, for enabling it, to, extend the operation of the orders pronounced upon OMP No.392 of 1987, (f) whereas, for extending the longevity, of, orders pronounced in OMP No.392 of 1987, besides , for, meteing apt extension(s) vis-a-vis the the mandate(s) , of the apposite scheme, whereto deference stood meted, thereupon rendered imperative, casting of apposite motions before the Court concerned. Nowat, with the CWP No.6819 of 2014, for reasons aforestated, standing instituted, prior to the restoration of the Civil Suit concerned, hence, therefrom the import of the orders pronounced in CWP No.6819 of 2014, is to be marshalled. Nowat, with the CWP No.6819 of 2014, for reasons aforestated, standing instituted, prior to the restoration of the Civil Suit concerned, hence, therefrom the import of the orders pronounced in CWP No.6819 of 2014, is to be marshalled. The order of status quo, directed to be maintained, by the litigating parties, is enjoined to bear a construction, of, it appertaining, to apposite prevalences therewith or qua the apposite operations, specifically appertaining to the distribution, of funds, amongst the Bhojakis, of, the temple concerned. Tritely, at the time of the apposite decision being recorded, on 29th June, 2015 in CWP No.6819 of 2014, the petitioners omitted to place on record, any material personificatory, of adherence yet being meted vis-a-vis the scheme, whereto deference was meted by this Court, while, making a decision upon OMP No.392 of 1987, (g) also when longevity thereof remained alive only upto 15 years, commencing, from May, 1987, and, force whereof hence elapsed in the month of May, 2002, whereafter its operation remain alive without any judicial order being made, yet without demur, (h) also when the apposite civil suit, given its being dismissed in default, hence remained in a state of inertia, (i) also therewithin the force of the orders, pronounced, in OMP No.392 of 1987 hence remained immobilized, (j) thereupon, hence adherence thereto being unmeteable, (k) rather omission(s) of the petitioners, to place on record any material personificatory, of, the scheme mandated to be adhered, to, by the defendants/respondents herein, under a pronouncement recorded upon OMP No.392 of 1987, specifically upto orders being pronounced upon CWP No.6819 of 2014, being the one embodied therein, besides holding clout, rather when the respondents contend, of, unprotested disbursements occurring, through a subsequently prepared scheme, (l) rather begets a conclusion of the scheme, reflected in the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid OMP, hence not comprising the one warranting adherence being meted thereto, rather the unprotested scheme prepared subsequent, to, the dismissal of the apposite civil suit, being the one, hence, holding force and clout, at the time contemporaneous vis-a-vis this Court, making a pronouncement upon CWP No.6819 of 2014. In aftermath, with the aforesaid unprotested scheme, being the one holding prevalence, at the time contemporaneous, vis-a-vis this Court hence recording a decision upon CWP No.6819 of 2014, (m) thereupon, the status quo, ordered to be maintained by the parties, gathers the necessary implication, of, the contesting litigants, being enjoined to ensure adherence thereto, than the petitioners herein insisting upon adherence being meted vis-a-vis the orders pronounced upon OMP No. 392 of 1987, especially, when for the reasons aforestated, it held longevity for 15 years, computable from 15.5.1987 upto 14.5.2002, and, also with this Court in making a pronouncement upon CWP No. 6819 of 2014, rather empowered the learned Civil Judge concerned, to, in consonance with the apposite motions being made before him, hence render affirmative directions, empowerments whereof remained unexercised. 5. Since, for all the aforesaid reasons, the learned trial Court has rendered a fallacious conclusion(s) , conclusions whereof are grooved upon an erroneous interpretation, of, an order recorded by this Court upon OMP No. 392 of 1987, rather when it was enjoined to withhold making, of, the orders impugned before this Court, (i) and, was enjoined to elicit from the Deputy Commissioner concerned, (ii) given the apparent termination, of, the longevity of the apposite scheme, an apt consensual scheme, whereafter upon considering the respective contentions of the litigating parties, it was enjoined to re-enliven the manner of apposite distribution of funds. However, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur, has, despite the apposite scheme surviving only upto 15 years, termination whereof occurred in the month of May, 2002, has made a gross mis-interpretation, of, orders pronounced, by this Court in OMP No.392 of 1987, also made an erroneous interpretation, of the pronouncement recorded, by this Court in CWP No.6819 of 2014, than, as aforestated, its, seeking an appropriate application, from, the defendants accompanied by a consensual scheme, for hence validating besides enabling the manner of distribution of funds, amongst, the Bhojakis. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur is directed, to, for facilitating the distribution of funds amongst the Bhojakis, hence seek, from, the contesting parties, appropriate applications accompanied by appropriate scheme(s) , whereafter, he shall pass order(s) , in accordance with law. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed. In sequel, the order impugned is set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed. In sequel, the order impugned is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 23rd April, 2018. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.