ORDER :

1. The matter has come up on an application filed under Section 151 read with Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter "the CPC") filed by the respondent-State of Rajasthan for getting the possession of the suit property restored.

2. That the brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that a temple popularly called as "Baiji Ka Temple", which is situated at Badi Chopar, Khanda Manak Chowk, Jaipur. There are about 24 shops appurtenant to the temple and there is parcel of land behind the temple popularly referred to an "Bagichi". Apart from the shops and the "Bagichi", there were certain other parts which form an integral part of the temple and were in possession of the State Education Department and PHED department. Even though, the temple always belonged to the state government, on an application preferred by the original plaintiff Bhansidhar Sharma (since deceased) [hereinafter "Bansidhar (since deceased)"], he was permitted by the government to perform "Seva Pooja" and later on, he was also appointed as the “Bhandari” of the said temple for a period of three months, to look after the temple. Vide order dated 21.01.1955 Bansidhar (since deceased) was confirmed as the Bhandari of the temple. When the said order dated 21.01.1955 was revoked by the government and Bansidhar (since deceased) was transferred, he brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of the temple.

3. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.1977. Being aggrieved of the order dated 27.11.1977 passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff Bansidhar (since deceased) filed a First Appeal before this Court, which came to be numbered as S.B. Civil First Appeal 86/1979. The said First Appeal was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 19.11.1997.

4. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 19.11.1997 passed by the single judge, an intra-court appeal was preferred by the State respondents. The said intra-court appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.02.2017. Vide the said judgment, the Division Bench remitted the matter back.

5. In pursuance of the order dated 03.02.2017, the First Appeal was heard on merits again, the said appeal was dismissed vide Judgment dated 20.04.2018. The operative portion of the judgment dated 20.04.2018 for deciding the miscellaneous application, reads as follows:

"An application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent in which, it was prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the order dated 10.10.1996 and 22.11.1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court may be recalled/modified/reviewed and second stay application may be dismissed and position as on 10.10.1996 may be restored.

26. It transpires that on 22.11.1996 following order was passed in the second stay application filed by the appellant:-

"Consequently, the second stay is allowed. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the rights of the applicants to perform sewa pooja of the idols in the said temple and also not to dispossess the applicants from the premises of the temple in which they are residing. Respondents are further directed to restore the possession of the temple of Lord Laxminarainji, i.e., the temple in question to the applicants/appellants forthwith or in any case not later than 3rd of December, 1996 and the compliance report be submitted by the respondents in this regard immediately since the possession of the aforesaid temple was taken by the respondents in 1988 from Late Bansidhar forcibly and without due process of law and without obtaining any decree of possession or an order of eviction against Late Bansidhar or the present applicants/appellants from a competent court. The interim order, dated 10.10.1996 passed by this Court clarifying the earlier order dated 11.01.1978 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court, is confirmed pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Let the appeal be listed for hearing