The court ruled that rights to temple offerings must be resolved before any applications regarding their allocation can be granted.

ORDER

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

2. These matters relate to the Shri Kalkaji Mandir and are being heard from time to time. Vide order dated 16th July 2021, notices were issued to counsels appearing in the trial courts where more than 40 cases are pending in respect of the Kalkaji Mandir. In view of the said notice, Suit CS No.29016/2016 has been mentioned today. It is submitted that evidence has been concluded before the ld. ADJ and it may be clarified that the ld. ADJ can proceed to adjudicate the matter finally. It is clarified that since the suit is listed for final arguments before the ADJ, the said matter may proceed further.

CM (M) 575/2021 & CM APPLs.29013-14/2021

3. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 30th September, 2020, passed by the ADJ-II, West District, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter, "trial court"), vide which the application of the Petitioner (who was the Respondent No. 2 before the trial court) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for auction of the bari for performing puja sewa at the Kalkaji Mandir, commencing from 26th/27th September, 2020, and concluding on 26th October 2020, has been rejected by the Trial Court.

4. The Petitioner - Shri Mam Chand, claims rights to his share in the Mandir's offerings and collections which are claimed to have devolved upon him from his mother through his naani who in turn got rights through her father Mr. Mehar Nath, son of Mr Sukhi Nath. He claims that he belongs to the Gharbari Jogi (San Jogis in the Thok Jogians).

5. The submission of Mr. Chhokar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the rights of the naani were earlier recognized by the Court. However, vide the judgment dated 28th September, 1985 in MCA No.344/1985, it was held that Parsandi Devi, who is the mother of the present Petitioner, is not entitled to shares in the offerings of the Kalkaji Mandir.

6. The present bari, for which the application was moved before the trial court, was for the month of 26th September, 2020 to 27th October, 2020 during which period the Petitioner claims rights in bari. The Trial Court has observed that in order to allow the application of the Petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, it will be necessary to decide as to whether which of the parties have rights of puja sewa in the Kalkaji Mandir. Accordingly, the Petitioner's application was rejected by the trial court. However, Mr. Chhokar, ld. Counsel, submits that the share of the Petitioner has been deposited before the Trial Court.

7. Accordingly, issue notice in the matter. Let notice be served upon the ld. counsels appearing for the Respondents in the Trial Court, by the Petitioner. The notice shall be issued dasti as also through email.

8. Mr. Rajesh, ld. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of LRs of Respondent No. 58. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, ld. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Mr. Tarun and Mr. Varun, Respondent Nos. 60 & 61, who are the children of Mr. Daya Ram.

9. List on 24th September 2021, at 2:30 PM.

CONT.CAS(C) 614/2021

10. Let reply be filed in the present contempt petition within one week. Rejoinder, thereto, be filed with one week thereafter.

11. List on 24th September 2021.

FAO 36/2021 & CM APPL.2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021, 20904/2021, 23819/2021, 25869-70/2021, 25884-85/2021, 26495/2021, CM APPL. 25868/2021 and CM APPL. 29121/2021

12. CM APPL. 25868/2021 has been filed on behalf of Ms. Monika Ganguly seeking impleadment. CM APPL. 29121/2021 has been on behalf of Shailender Kumar Gautam seeking impleadment in FAO 36/2021.

13. In these matters, various issues relating to S