Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Shri Shri Radha Govind Dev Ji on 9 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7955
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.1047 of 2025
09th September, 2025
Hemant S. Thakur ............Petitioner
Versus
Shri Shri Radha Govind Dev Ji
Temple and others ..............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner-defendant.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondents-plaintiffs nos.1 to 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present writ petition has been filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners,
whereby the petitioner has challenged the order dated
24.07.2024, passed in Original Suit No. 16 of 2022, Shri
Shri Radha Govind Devji Mandir and Others vs. Raju Bajaj
and Others. By the said order, the application filed by the
petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner-defendant that the original suit is not
maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 50 read
with Section 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1950"), for the
reason that prior permission from the Charity
Commissioner is required for the institution of the suit. It
is further contended that the Charity Commissioner,
Mumbai, is a necessary party. The said application was
rejected by the impugned order.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C., 1908, the
2025:UHC:7955
petitioner preferred a revision before the learned District
Judge, Tehri-Garhwal, in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2024,
Hemant S. Thakur vs. Shri Shri Radha Govind Devji
Mandir and Others, which too was rejected by order dated
20.03.2025, thereby affirming the earlier order dated
24.07.2024. Feeling aggrieved by both the orders, the
petitioner-defendant has approached this Court.
4. It is primarily contended by learned counsel for
the petitioner that since the Trust has been created
under the provisions of the Act of 1950, the said Act shall
apply, and accordingly, the order rejecting the application
is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-
plaintiffs nos. 1 to 6 submitted that the Act of 1950 was
enacted by the State of Maharashtra, and Section 1 of
the said Act specifically limits its applicability to the
State of Maharashtra.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in Moti Lal Bhim Raj Charity Trust
vs. Prakash Chand Jhunjhunwala, reported in 2015 SCC
Online All 5180. It is submitted that in the said case, the
Allahabad High Court, after a detailed examination of the
arguments advanced by both sides, held that even if the
Trust was created under the Maharashtra Public Trusts
Act (formerly the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950), the
Court at Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) had territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the provisions
of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, would be
applicable.
7. Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiffs nos.
1 to 6 has strongly opposed the said argument, stating
2025:UHC:7955
that the case relied upon by the petitioner-defendant did
not consider the purport of Section 1 of the Act of 1950.
Furthermore, in the present case, the issue is not one of
territorial jurisdiction. He clarified that the petitioner's
contention is limited to the requirement of permission
from the Charity Commissioner and the necessity of
impleading the Charity Commissioner as a party under
Sections 50 and 51 of the Act of 1950.
8. Having considered the rival submissions of the
parties, this Court is of the view that the matter requires
in-depth deliberation, for which completion of pleadings
is necessary.
9. Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiffs nos.
1 to 6 may file their counter-affidavit within two weeks.
10. List this matter on 26.09.2025.
11. In the meantime, further proceedings in
Original Suit No. 16 of 2022, Shri Shri Radha Govind
Devji Mandir and Others vs. Raju Bajaj and Others, shall
remain stayed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
09.09.2025
SK
