REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GOSWAMI KALYANRAIJI GOVINDRAIJI Appellant

V/S

GOSWAMI VALLABHRAIJI GOVINDRAIJI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAGHUNATHA JEW AT BHAPUR V. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MILIND AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
OUSEPH MATHAI V. M. ABDUL KHADIR [REFERRED TO]
VATHIAR VENKATACHARIAR V. P. PONAPPA AYYENGAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ADVOCATE GENERAL OF BOMBAY V. YUSUF ALI EBRAHIM AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ANGURBALS MULLICK VS. DEBABRATA MULLICK [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOW MENTS MADRAS VS. LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SHIRUR MUTT [REFERRED TO]
SINHA RAMANUJA JEER ALIAS VANAMAMALAI RAMANUJA JEER SWAMIGAL VS. RANGA RAMANUJA JEER ALIAS EMBERUMANAR JEER [REFERRED TO]
TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ TRIYAMBAK LAL GOSWAMI SHN CILANSHYAMLAIJI TILKAYAT SHRI GOWINDLAIJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATTAN VS. BAJRANG LAL [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQIM [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU CHARAN SHUKLA VS. THAKUR LADLI RADHA CHANDRA MADAN GOPALJI MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
H B GANDHI EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER CUM ASSESSING AUTHORITY KARNAL VS. GOPINATH AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
KHANNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
MOST REV P M A METROPOLITAN VS. MORAN MAR MARTHOMA [REFERRED TO]
ACHUTANANDA BAIDYA VS. PRAFULLYA KUMAR GAYEN [REFERRED TO]
BABY VS. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. GRAPCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COLGATE PALMOLIVE INDIA LIMITED VS. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
S M DYECHEM LIMITED VS. CADBURY INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
VADIVELU VS. SUNDARAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MANGAL TRADERS JAMNAGAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. CHHAGANLAL GANGARAM LAVAR [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA VARUTHI THIRTHA VS. BALUSAMI AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
CHITTI BABU MUDALIAR VS. AVENKATASUBBU MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
GOSWAMI SRI GOPAL LALJI MAHARAJ VS. GOSWAMI SRI GIRDHAR LALJI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners/original defendants seek to challenge judgment and order dated August 7, 2002 rendered by learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Surat in Misc. Civil Appeal No.120 of 2001 by which appeal filed by the respondent/original plaintiff against the petitioners came to be allowed and thereby order dated 9/11/2001 recorded below Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2001 disallowing the respondent's application has been set aside and ad-interim injunction as prayed for by the respondent in prayer clause para 11 (1) and (2) of Ex.5 has been granted till final disposal of the suit whereas cross-objections filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 3 at Ex.10 and petitioner No.2 at Ex.11 have been rejected.

(2.) Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein are the original defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 whereas respondent herein is the original plaintiff in the lower courts and, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, in this petition also, they are referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendants'.

(3.) Since the question involved in this petition is relating to succession of the "Pithadhipati" of Surat Pith where the Nidhi Swaroop of Balkrishanji had been consecrated by First Pithadhipati of Nathdwara Shri Gosai Shri Vithaldasji of Vallabh Sampraday (Pushti Marg) which is of considerable importance for the followers and disciples of the said Sampraday, this matter is taken up for hearing and decided finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

Click here to view full judgment.

GOSWAMI KALYANRAIJI GOVINDRAIJI Vs. GOSWAMI VALLABHRAIJI GOVINDRAIJI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address