Umashankar vs Durgadas
2023 Latest Caselaw 4346 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                               ON THE 20 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                              MISC. PETITION No. 544 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           UMASHANKAR S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS VILLAGE
                           DASAI TESHIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI ASHOK S. GARG, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MS.
                           POORVA MAHAJAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.)

                           AND
                           1.    DURGADAS S/O BHAWANIDAS, AGED ABOUT 65
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING VILLAGE DASAI
                                 TEHSIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    RAJENDRA S/O DURGADAS, AGED ABOUT 38
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS VILLAGE DASAI,
                                 TEHSIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    STATE OF M.P. THR THE COLLECTOR DHAR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    SHRI    SHANKAR   MANDIR    THROUGH
                                 VYAVASTHAPAK COLLECTOR DHAR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE APPEARS FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2, THOUGH SERVED;
                           AND SHRI KAUSTUBH PATHAK, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
                           APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL RESPONDENTS
                           NO.3 AND 4.)

                                 T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                            ORDER

Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 23-03-2023 15:08:50

parties.

By this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner / plaintiff has challenged order dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the trial Court, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as the CPC) for correction of the description of respondent No.4 has been rejected.

The suit has been instituted by plaintiff by impleading "Shri Shankar Mandir" through "Vyavasthapak, Collector, Dhar, District Dhar MP", as defendant No.4. During course of proceedings before the trial Court, plaintiff

filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for correction of the name of defendant No.4 by deleting the words "Vyavasthapak, Collector, Dhar, District Dhar MP", and substituting the same by its 'Pujari' relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti & another reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 222. It was submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, it has been categorically laid down that a private temple cannot be represented through the Collector of the District. The said application was contested by defendants No.3 and 4 / State of Madhya Pradesh; and it has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order on the ground that in the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff, there is no direction for deletion of the name of the Collector from over private temple.

From a perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that plaintiff has contended that defendant No.4 is a private temple and not a public temple. At the stage of deciding impleadment of a party, only the averments in the plaint are required to be considered. Since plaintiff has contended defendant No.4 to be a private Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 23-03-2023 15:08:50

temple, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the same cannot be represented through the Collector of the District.

The application, hence, preferred by the petitioner / plaintiff ought to have been allowed by the trial Court and in not doing so, it has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for defendants No.3 and 4 contended that as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, a 'Pujari' of a temple cannot represent the temple. In my opinion, the said issue is not required to be considered at this stage; and shall be adjudicated upon at an appropriate stage.

Consequently, impugned order dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) is set aside; and the application dated 10.01.2021 (Annexure P/5) is accordingly, allowed. It is, however, made clear that impleadment of 'Pujari' of defendant No.4 is only for the purpose of representation of the temple in this suit and is not any conclusive determination of his status as a 'Pujari' of the temple.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, Miscellaneous Petition No.544/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE rcp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 23-03-2023 15:08:50