Chander Dass Chela Hanuman Dass vs Murti Mandir Sita Ram Ji Maharaj … on 11 August, 2009

C.R. No.5312 of 2005                                               1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                          Civil Revision No.5312 of 2005
                                          Date of Decision : 11.08.2009


Chander Dass Chela Hanuman Dass                             .....Petitioner
             versus
Murti Mandir Sita Ram Ji Maharaj and others                 .....Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.


Present : Mr.S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
           Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the respondents.
                          -.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

                          ---

                                 ORDER

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

14.6.2005, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari,

whereby the petitioner-defendant has been directed to deposit the entire

lease money and the future income from the property of the temple, in some

nationalized bank during the pendency of the suit, as well as the order dated

6.9.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, affirming

the aforesaid order of the trial Court.

The first respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and

injunction against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 4,
C.R. No.5312 of 2005 2

claiming itself to be the authorized Trustee to run the affairs of the temple

Murti Mandir Sita Ramji Maharaj Sthapit and the land measuring 175

Kanals – 6 marlas owned by the Temple, which is situated in the revenue

estate of village Manethi, Tehsil and District Rewari.

It is not in dispute that the land owned by the deity is leased out

for extraction of minerals like `slate’ for consideration, comprising royalty

etc. It is in this background that the Civil Court though declined the ad-

interim injunction to the respondent No.1-plaintiff, but directed the

petitioner-defendant to deposit the lease money of Rs.5 lacs already

received, as well as the royalty on sale proceeds being received from

respondent Nos.2 to 4 in some nationalized bank.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

It is not in dispute that in compliance to the statement made

before this Court on 6.10.2005, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.2.5

lacs in a nationalized bank. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff,

however, contends that the royalty received by the petitioner @ Rs.45/- per

tonnes has not been deposited so far as was directed by this Court, though

learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the same. It is, however, an

admitted fact that during the pendency of the revision petition, some

effective steps towards disposal of the suit have been taken though it is still

fixed for plaintiff’s evidence.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and

with a view to ensure that the amount being received by the temple towards

royalty etc. for extraction of minerals from the land owned by it, is not

misappropriated and is kept intact till the dispute in respect of the
C.R. No.5312 of 2005 3

management of the temple is decided by the Civil Court, this revision

petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) the defendant-petitioner shall deposit the balance amount of

Rs.2.50 lacs as per the direction of the Courts below, in the

Punjab National Bank, Rewari Branch, within a period of 3

months;

(ii) Henceforth, respondent Nos.2 to 4, namely, the lease holders,

are directed to deposit the royalty @ Rs.45/- per tonne in the

Punjab National Bank, Rewari Branch in the temple’s account,

preferably every day, but not later than a week. The petitioner-

defendant as well as the respondent-plaintiff shall be entitled to

seek the details of such deposits from respondent Nos.2 to 4,

who shall furnish such details every month only. However,

none of the parties shall be entitled to withdraw or utilize the

said amount;

(iii) As regards the interregnum period i.e., after passing of the ad-

interim order by the trial Court, the petitioner shall furnish the

details of the deposits, made by it, in the Punjab National Bank,

Rewari with the trial Court, who shall verify the same and, if so

required, issue further appropriate directions;

(iv) If the petitioner-defendant No.1 requires any amount from the

royalty deposited or to be deposited in future, for the

maintenance of the temple, he shall be at liberty to approach the

Civil Court who shall then pass appropriate orders, after issuing

notice to the respondent-plaintiff. The upkeep or maintenance
C.R. No.5312 of 2005 4

activities shall be carried out by the defendant-petitioner under

the supervision of the trial Court and such an adhoc

arrangement shall not be construed to mean that this Court has

accepted the petitioner’s possession or entitlement to run the

affairs of the temple/trust.

(v) The trial Court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible

and preferably within one year.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Dasti.

11-08-2009                                             (SURYA KANT)
  Mohinder                                                 JUDGE