The High Court may consolidate and adjudicate multiple related cases under Article 227 to improve judicial efficiency, particularly in complex temple management disputes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 24(1)(b) - Consolidation of suits relating to Kalkaji Mandir - Issues regarding women's rights and temple management were involved - A large number of pending litigations indicated inefficiency in handling temple-related disputes - Court exercised its powers under Section 24 to consolidate all related cases to streamline processes - Court appointed an Independent Administrator to oversee functioning and preserve the integrity of the Mandir. (Paras 4, 85-106)

(B) Judicial Economy - The court deemed it necessary to consolidate numerous cases across various lower courts to prevent multiplicity of litigation and ensure efficient management of judicial resources. (Paras 86-91)

(C) Transfer of Cases - Under Article 227, the High Court can withdraw cases for effective adjudication and direction. (Paras 88-90)

(D) Governance Issues - The appointment of an administrator aims to address ongoing management issues and serve the community effectively. (Paras 106)

JUDGMENT

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

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

3. The present are a batch of writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, civil suits, and appeal that relate to the Kalkaji Mandir.

4. This Court was initially seized of FAO 36/2021, filed in January, 2021. In the said proceedings, issues relating to women's right to perform puja seva and receive a share in the offerings, mismanagement of the temple, cleanliness and maintenance of the premises, commercialisation of the Mandir, auctioning of baris, plethora of disputes between baridaars and other stakeholders, lack of civic amenities for devotees, etc., were brought to the attention of the Court. Accordingly, vide order dated 27th September, 2021, cognizant of the need to streamline the resolution of disputes pertaining to bari rights, rights of women, as also to save judicial time as also to ensure and maintain smooth functioning of the Mandir, and to provide basic facilities for devotees, a number of suits pending across the various district courts, were transferred to this Court in exercise of powers under Section 24 CPC. The relevant portion of the order dated 27th September, 2021 reads as under:

"85. A perusal of the above list shows that there is a large quantum of litigation in respect of the Kalkaji Mandir that are pending and spread across District and Civil Courts, being dealt with by Judicial Officers in Delhi. Enormous judicial time is being spent in adjudication of various applications and the proceedings in some of these suits. This Court had summoned records of a few of the suits from the above list, and a perusal of the same shows that these disputes, which raise almost similar issues, have been pending for a long time, and have resulted in enormous multiplicity of litigation. A large amount of money is also stated to be deposited with various District Courts, in lieu of the said disputes. The said monies ought to be ably used for disbursement to right holders, if any, or for the development and maintenance of the Kalkaji Mandir premises. The number of parties in some of the cases, are more than 200 in each case and thus the number is unmanageable. The task of adjudication of these suits requires to be consolidated and streamlined. Further, due to the pendency of all these disputes, various further disputes and impediments towards the maintenance of the Mandir have arisen, and these ought to be resolved for the smooth functioning of the Mandir.

86. Considering the fact that all these cases relate to only one Mandir i.e, Sh. Kalkaji Mandir, and issues which arise in all these eases are similar and overlapping, a large amount of judicial time is being consumed by all the District Courts, which are adjudicating these cases separately and individually.

87. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 24(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw all the cases from their respective District and Civil Courts, and consolidate them after examining the issues which have been raised in the said cases.

88. In Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai and ors., (2003) 1 SCC 488, the Supreme Court has held in respect of the power of transfer under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act as under:

"18. A bare perusal of the said provision leaves no manner of doubt that the High Court had the requisite jurisdiction to suo motu withdraw a suit to its file and adjudicate itself all or any of the issues involved Therein.

89. Further, even the Calcutta High Court in Krishna Kumar Damani v. Ramnarain Agarwal, AIR 1985 Cal 162, has held:

...

90. Therefore, in order to streamline and accelerate the hearings in all these matters mentioned above, this Court exercises power under Section 24(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and directs the transfe