SAMPAT DEVI Vs. HANUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Bikaner dated September 19, 1987 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsif, Bikaner dated January 20, 1986, directing the defendant-non-petitioners to maintain status quo in respect of the construction of the building of Mataji's Temple, Sunaron ki Mandi, Bikaner. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Bikaner for injunction against the defendant-non-petitioners with the allegations, in short, that Mataji's Temple exists close to her house, the defendants are its trustees, they have demolished the old building of the temple and have raised two storeyed building in its place without the permission of the Municipal Board, Bikaner and of the Collector, Bikaner under Section 6, Rajasthan Religious Buildings & Places Act, 1954 and have opened several ventilators and windows towards her house. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was moved, praying that the defendants be restrained from raising further constructions and opening the ventilators* and windows. THE defendants filed their reply, seriously opposing the application and stating that alterations have simply been effected in the ground floor of the building of the temple, a room has been constructed in the upper storey, no new temple has been constructed, suit is not maintainable without impleading the idle of Shri Mataji, there exists a lane in between the building of the temple and the plaintiff's house and ventilators & windows open towards the lane, After hearing the part;ies, the learned Munsiff directed the defendants to maintain the status quo in respect of the construction by his order dated January 20,1986. On the application of the defendants, the learned Munsif permitted them to complete the flouring work of the ground floor by his order dated January 25, 1986. Aggrieved by the order dt. January 20, 1986, the defendants filed Appeal No. 154/86. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 20. 1. 86 by his judgment dated September 19, 1987, which has been challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) IT is very much doubtful that the provisions of Sec. 6, Rajasthan Religious Buildings & Places Act, 1954 would apply when a temple is renovated. Under these facts and circumstances, IT cannot be said that the learned AddITional District Judge acted illegally or wITh material irregularITy in the exercise of his jurisdiction while allowing the appeal. Thus there is no force in the revision petITion.