( 1 ) THIS Appeal from Order under O. 43 R. 1 (r) of code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) is preferred by the appellants- original defendants against the order dated 1. 10. 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned order"" passed by ld. 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (S. D.), nadiadbelowapplicationexh. 5 in Spl. Civil Suit no. 156/2002. By the impugned order, ld. Civil Judge has allowed the application exh. 5 and has granted prohibitory order restraining the appellants-original defendants from acting for themselves and with their supporters and entering the temple under Vadtal Gadi at Vadtal, Gadhada, junagadh region under the pretext of carrying of "dhoon" without prior permission of the Managing Trust Board or the Government and not to organise any meeting in the above-said areas. Appellant no. 1 is further restrained by the order under challenge from discharging and/or performing any activities as "acharya"tillfinal disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) BEINGAGGRIEVEDANDDISSATISFIED with the impugned order dated 1. 10. 2002, the present appeal is preferred on various grounds stating out mainly in para-3 of the appeal and it is submitted that the order under challenge is even otherwise illegal, unjust and erroneous and the same requires to be quashed and set aside.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the application preferred under O. 43 R. 1 and 2 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC by the original plaintiffs in the above-said Civil Suit- exh. 5, has been referred for short as "exh. 5 application". The appellants are hereinafter also referred to as the originaldefendantsand respondents herein as the original plaintiffs. Duringthediscussionword "acharya" is used for defendant no. 1 and at some place defendant no. 1 has been referred as "acharya". The ld. 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (S. D.) Nadiad has been referred to as the Lower Court, or ld. Civil Judge.

( 4 ) I have heard ld. counsel appearing for the parties at length. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. S. B. Vakil appearing with ld. counsel Mr. A. S. Vakil for the appellants, ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. S. N. Shelat and ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. P. M. Raval with ld. Counsel Mr. P. G. Desai for the respondents. Ld. Counsel Mr. S. B. Vakil has taken me through the facts till the relevant date referred to in the plaint as well as in the memo of the appeal i. e. 11. 5. 2002, the day on which the alleged satsang Mahasabha was convened and defendant no. 1 on the basis of the resolution allegedly passed in very Satsang mahasabha, came to be deposed from "gadi" or "pad" and status of Acharya.

( 5 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions raised by the ld. counsel appearing for the parties and various facts emerging from the record and the submissions made before the Court, it is necessary to mention certain basic facts leading to present Appeal from Order. (I)THEPLAINTIFFSHAVEINITIALLYMOVEDTHE jurisdiction of the ld. Civil Judge (S. D.) Bhavnagar by filing Spl. Civil Suit No. 144/2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Bhavnagar Suit) praying declarationand permanent injunction that as per the resolution dated 11. 5. 2002 of the Satsang Mahasabha (hereinafter referred to as the Mahasabha), defendant no. 1 Shri Ajendraprasadji is not the Acharya of Vadtal Diocese of Swaminarayan Sect and, therefore, defendant no. 1 be restrained from acting and/or performing as and carrying on activities as acharya of Vadtal Diocese. Supplementary proceedings under O. 39 R. 1 and 2 and Section 151 of CPC were resorted to and the plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction in terms of prohibitory relief prayed inthemain suit. Defendants appeared in bhavnagar suit and vide application exh. 19, raised a contention that the ld. Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The applicationfor injunction was also resisted by a detailed reply with documentary evidence. The Bhavnagar court was pleased to dismiss the application exh. 19 of the defendants and granted an application for temporary injunction. The order