Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji Pravenirai ... vs Sitaram S/O Shri Ramchandra Meena
2022 Latest Caselaw 3217 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2669/2019

Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji (Pravenirai Ji) Thikana Galta
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
Sitaram S/o Shri Ramchandra Meena & Ors.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)           :     Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Ashish Joshi



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                      Order

21/04/2022

1. Appellant-plaintiff- Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji (Pravenirai Ji)

Thikana Galta, has filed the present appeal, feeling aggrieved by

dismissal of application for temporary injunction filed under Order

39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC vide order dated 01.06.2019 passed by

Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan.

2. Counsel for appellant submits that appellant-temple has filed

a civil suit for permanent injunction claiming that suit property is

included in the list of temple properties prepared wayback in the

year 1928. Earlier the appellant was not aware about such list and

instituted suit in his personal capacity. Private respondents created

a trust over the suit property and same was challenged,

whereupon registration of their trust has been cancelled by the

Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur vide

judgment dated 25.04.1988. Now respondents are raising

construction over the suit property, hence, respondents be

restrained by way of temporary injunction, not to raise

construction over the suit property.

(2 of 3) [CMA-2669/2019]

3. Counsel for respondents submits that suit property includes

temple and open ground which is a public property where general

public at large come for the purpose of offering pooja and it is in

possession and management of general public, through

respondents. Counsel for respondents submits that earlier one

civil suit No.421/2003 was filed by present Mahant of temple in his

personal capacity in relation to the suit property and the previous

suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.09.2007. Further

respondents have only raised construction of boundary walls, two

bathrooms and tin-shed portion in order to protect the suit

property and for the beneficial use of public properties in the

interest of public at large and by now construction have already

been completed.

4. Heard counsel for both parties. There is serious dispute

about title and possession of the suit property and in past too,

there had been litigation between parties. Hence, matter requires

consideration.

5. Appeal is admitted.

6. Since counsel has put in appearance on behalf of

respondents, notices need not be issued.

7. As an interim measure, this Court observes that since the

suit property includes temple premise, where the construction of

boundary wall, bathrooms and tin-shed have already been

completed. Such construction would not adversely affect the rights

of appellant in adjudication of their alleged title and possession in

the suit nor would create any equity in favour of respondents. No

further construction shall be raised by either of parties without

prior permission of this Court.

(3 of 3) [CMA-2669/2019]

8. With aforesaid observations, the stay application stands

disposed of.

9. The pendency of this appeal will not stop the trial Court to

pursue proceedings of civil suit on merits.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN /60

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)