AKHILESHWARA NAND PURI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed seeking substitution of one Shailendra Nand Puri in place of original writ petitioner namely, Akhileshwara Nand Puri.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner died however, before an application for substitution was filed, the writ petition stood dismissed in default vide order dated 17.01.2012. Thereafter, an application for restoration being C.M.P. No. 35 of 2012 was filed on 27.01.2012 and, in view of the objection raised by the Registry in the C.M.P., an application being I.A. No. 1329 of 2012 was filed on 12.04.2012. I.A. No. 1329 of 2012 was allowed vide order dated 18.04.2012 and thereafter, the writ petition was restored to its original file vide order dated 02.09.2014 by which the said C.M.P. No. 35 of 2012 was allowed. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that initially a title suit being Title Suit No. 102 of 2001 was filed by the proposed petitioner (applicant) seeking a declaration of his status as Mahanth. In the said title suit, an application for injunction restraining defendant no. 1 was filed which was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2002. Against the said order a Civil Misc. Appeal No. 04 of 2002 was filed in which vide order dated 19.03.2002 an order of "status quo" was granted. It is thus submitted that the proposed petitioner has been able to establish that he is the legal heir and successor of the Mahant Akhileshwara Nand Puri who has died during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore, I.A. No. 2848 of 2010 seeking substitution should be allowed.

(3.) Controverting the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 submits that in view of the proceeding before the Trial Court, it is apparent that the applicant's status as a legal heir of Mahanth Akhileshwara Nand Puri is yet to be adjudicated. Merely because an order of injunction has been granted against the defendant no. 1, the applicant cannot be deemed to have succeeded Mahanth Akhileshwara Nand Puri.