High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Hanuman Mandir Noida G.B. Nagar And Others v. G.D. Education Society Another - WRIT - C No. 34700 of 2006  RD-AH 11125 (7 July 2006)
Court No. 23
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34700 of 2006
Shri Ram Hanuman Mandir & others Vs. G.D. Education Society & another
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Petitioner No. 1 is a deity of Hanuman Mandir in the presented suit. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are Pujari and Manager of the said temple. The plaintiffs filed suit in the year 2003 for permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from demolishing or otherwise harming structure of temple and making encroachment therein. Along with the suit they also moved the court with a prayer of temporary injunction, but the trial court on that application directed issuance of notices to the defendants against which the plaintiffs-petitioners preferred a revision under Section 115 Cr.P.C. before the District Judge. The District Judge had granted an exparte injunction order in the said revision and the same continued till the date the revision was disposed of. The revision has been dismissed, vide the impugned order dated 24.5.2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
The learned counsel contends that the idea of constructing a temple was mooted by the previous Management of the respondents Society for which a small piece of land was earmarked in the portion of the plot allotted to the Society by the NOIDA. With the help of the Society as well as the general public this construction of the temple was raised in which different Hindu 'Deotas' statues were installed and consecrated through religious ceremony. Now after the management of the Society has changed, the disputed construction of the temple which is now a temple open to the general public, is threatened for demolition and encroachment and it gave occasion to the petitioners to seek this relief. The exparte injunction granted by the revisional court has been continuing and now since the said revision has been dismissed, the respondents-defendants would demolish the temple at any moment if they are not so restrained by the Court.
From the aforesaid submissions and from the documents filed on record, it is evident that the temporary injunction application is still pending disposal before the trial court. The revisional court has not given any finding on the merits of the matter. The learned counsel states that so far the respondents have not submitted their counter affidavit before the trial court, therefore, while disposing of the writ petition, it is hereby directed that the trial court would take up the temporary injunction application of the petitioners after obtaining counter and rejoinder affidavits in the case and decide it within a period of one month hereinafter positively without affording any adjournment to either of the parties.
Till the expiry of this period of one month, the respondents, however, would not demolish or damage the temple nor they would encroach upon the land under occupation of the said temple. This stay order shall not continue after expiry of the said period.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.