JUDGMENT :- This is an application against the omnibus order passed by the 7th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Ahmednagar whereby the application (Exh.20) filed by the defendants No.1 to 3-trustees under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected and the plaintiff's application (Exh.5) for temporary injunction came to be allowed, restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff for performing the Puja and other rituals in respect of the deities and idols mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint, pending the suit.

2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit for injunction against the defendants out of which the defendant No. 1 is the public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the defendants No.2 to 5 are trustees thereof. In the course of the suit, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be filed by the defendants taking objection for maintainability of the suit for want of permission of the Charity Commissioner before filing of the suit as contemplated under sections 50 and 51 of the B.P.T. Act. The plaintiff, on the other hand, filed application for temporary injunction against the defendants-trustees submitting that they were obstructing him from performing Puja and other rituals in respect of the deities and other idols in the trust temple, which right was endowed on the plaintiff by the settlor of the trust.

3. The learned trial Judge thought it fit to hear both the parties conjointly on both the applications and adjudicated and disposed of both the interim applications by the common order rejecting the defendants' application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff.

4. It is an admitted as well as evident position that Shri Datta Devsthan Trust is a registered public trust, located at Ahmednagar and the defendants No.2 to 5 are the trustees, duly recognized under the provisions of the B.P.T. Act. The plaintiff is one of the hereditary trustee who is bestowed with certain rights in respect of the deity and hence, the suit came to be filed. The defendants challenged die suit on the ground that the allegations made by the plaintiff were unfounded. According to the defendants, they had never obstructed the plaintiff from performing the religious rites which were specifically bestowed over the plaintiff by the settlor of the trust. However, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants-defendants that the plaintiff was overstepping his limits as a hereditary trustee and in fact, interfering in the work of the trust and as such, the suit itself was touching the business of the trust and, therefore, permission of the Charity Commissioner was necessary before filing the suit. This argument was met with the submission on behalf of the respondent that no permission of the Charity Commissioner was required for the plaintiff to get his civil right established which had nothing to do with the functioning of the trust.

5. Now, it is an admitted position that in the settlement deed (Arpanpatrika), Shri Kshirsagar Maharaj had categorically listed the names of the deities in Schedule "A". Schedule "B" consisted of pedigree of the entire family, Schedule "C" consisted of the list of other religious miscellaneous items and Schedule "D" consisted of religious festivities to be observed during the course of the year. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they had no quarrel with the rights which were bestowed upon the plaintiff and they had no reason to obstruct him in performing the same. However, it was specifically contended that the plaintiff was interfering in the activities of the trust. The trust has undertaken construction of new temple structure in the nearby old temple with which the plaintiff has no concern whatsoever under the settlement deed and still, his interference in the matter is cause of concern for the trust as it unnecessarily hamper

Click Here to Read the rest of this document