The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to transfer matters under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the dismissal of suits due to lack of appearance by the plaintiffs, and the appointment of an administrator for the Kalkaji Mandir.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has been hearing from time to time. These are part-heard matters.

3. Vide order dated 27th September 2021, the present matters pertaining to the Kalkaji Mandir were transferred to this Court under Section 24 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

RFa 412/2021

4. The present first appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 30th July, 2018 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, South-East, Saket District Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter, 'Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.51666/2016 titled Rakesh Bharadwaj & anr. v. Surinder Nath @ Surinder Kumar. By the impugned order, the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellants-Plaintiffs (hereinafter, 'Plaintiffs') has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

5. The reliefs sought in the plaint include a declaration to the effect that the Respondent-Defendant (hereinafter 'Defendant') is not the Mahant of the Kalkaji Mandir and that he has no right, title, interest, claim or share to perform the Pooja Sewa or archana or to collect Tehbazaari. The said reliefs have been extracted below:

'a. To pass a decree of declaration declaring the defendant is not the MaHaNT i.e. Gaddinashin Mahant i.e. the Chief Priest of Kalkaji Mandir;

B. To pass a decree of declaration declaring the defendant no.1 has no right, title or interest or claim or share to perform Pooja Sewa archana and to collect offering, Tehbazaari etc. for as being Mahant of Mandir Kalkaji, New Delhi;

C. To pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant from claiming himself to be Mahant, Gaddi Nasheen, avdhot Jogi of the Mandir Kalkaji;

D. To pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant his servants, representatives/Chela or any other person on his behalf to carry out/perform any Pooja-archana in the Mandir Kalkaji or collect any offering etc.;

E. To award the entire cost of this suit on the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff;

F. To pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant.'

6. It is noticed that the impugned order dated 30th July, 2018 is a handwritten order. accordingly, let the typed copy of the impugned order be placed on record by the next date by ld. Counsel for the appellant.

7. Mr. Nandrajog, ld. Counsel for the Defendant, submits that the present first appeal was listed before the ld. additional District Judge, initially. In view thereof, the parties may be deprived of one appellate remedy if this Court adjudicates this matter. This Court shall consider the same after the typed copy of the impugned order is placed on record.

8. List on 27th april, 2022, at 2:30 pm.

CS (OS) 525/2021

9. On the last date before this Court, i.e., 9th December, 2021, notice was directed to be issued to the counsels for the parties appearing before the Trial Court.

10. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has entered appearance today. Defendant No.1 - Shri Lakhmi Chand alias Lakhu, who is a pujari, is represented by Mr. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, ld. counsel.

11. The Registry has reported that the notice has also been issued to the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs through Whatsapp. In addition, it is a well-known fact that this Court is seized of all matters relating to the Kalkaji Mandir premises. However, none appears for the Plaintiffs today.

12. In the present suit, the Plaintiffs claim that one Smt. Bhagwati inducted the Plaintiffs into the premises of the Kalkaji Mandir, as tenants. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the said Smt. Bhagwati had given permission to the Plaintiffs to reside in the said Dharamshala and pay rent to her, in respect of piece of land situated at Bhagwati Dharamshala, Kalkaji Mandir, New Delhi-110019 (hereinafter 'suit property'). She passed away in 2002. The prayers in this suit, against the pujari and against the SHO, PS Kalkaji, are as under:

'i) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and a