Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the States respondents.
The petitioners have preferred the present petition, inter-alia, with the following prayers:-
I. Issue a suitable order or direction for setting aside the judgment/order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lalitpur in Civil Suit No.03/2021 (Parasnath Ji Maharaj Vs. State of U.P. and another) II. Issue a suitable order or direction for allowing the application dated 11.01.2021 filed by the plaintiff/petition u/s 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 in Civil Suit No.3 of 2021 (Parasnath Ji Maharaj Vs. State of U.P. & ors.).
The facts in brief contained in the petition are that the plaintiffs/petitioners instituted a Civil Suit No.3 of 2021 (Parasnath Ji Maharaj Vs. State of U.P. and ors.) seeking a relief of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants/respondents from forcibly demolishing any part of the temple and/or the suit property described at the foot of the plaint.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, that a temple are being managed by the plaintiff no.2 which is a registered society and its registration stands duly renewed upto 22.05.2022. It is further argued that temple in question is an old temple in respect of which defendants/ respondents have no concern whatsoever. It is further argued that neither any illegal construction whatsoever has been raised by the plaintiffs/ petitioners nor they have ever encroached any land illegally. It is further argued that a notice has been served upon the petitioners by the defendant no.2 namely Prabhagiya Nideshak Samajik Vaniki Prabhag, Lalitpur. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid notice, an Original Suit was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners being Original Suit No.3 of 2020. In the aforesaid Suit, an application under Section 80(2) was also filed by the petitioners stating therein that urgent relief against the defendants/respondents are required and as such, serving of notice as required under Section 80(1) be exempted. It is further argued that though cogent reasons were made in the aforesaid application but the same was rejected by the Trial Court vide its order dated 18.01.2021. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
It is argued by Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners that interim injunction is urgently required and in absence of the same the defendants / respondents will demolish the premises of the temple.
It appears from the perusal of the record that though injunction was sought by the petitioners in the aforesaid suit to the extent that defendants/ respondents be restrained from demolishing any portion of the temple and hence the matter is of extreme urgency.
In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an exemption was liable to be granted in the matter but without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter the order dated 18.01.2021 was passed. From the perusal of record, it appears that no cogent reasons were mentioned in the order dated 18.01.2021 and the order dated 18.01.2021 is absolutely non-speaking and passed without considering various relevant aspect of the matter.
In this view of the matter, the order dated 18.01.2021 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 18.01.2021 is set aside. The Court below is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of seven days from the date of production of self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 pks