The material controversy between the parties can only be decided on the basis of evidence.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 20.6.2016 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur is maintained by the petitioner whereby the District Judge, Bilaspur dismissed the application preferred under Section 151 CPC for re-calling the order dated 5.9.2014, passed in CMA No. 413/6 of 2014 in Civil Suit No.1/2014, titled Jagat Ram & others versus Bhagat Ram Dass and Others, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.6.2016, passed in CMP No. 353/6 of 2016 in Civil Suit No.1 of 2014, titled Jagat Ram versus Bhagat Ram etc.

2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 92 CPC, praying therein for grant of permission to institute a suit against the present petitioners seeking his removal as a Manager from the Temple of Sri Ram Chandra Ji and Laxmi Narayan Ji at Dhabeta/ Swarghat, Tehsil Sri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. It was pleaded vide application seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit under Section 92 CPC that the suit property is the property of the Trust and the same is not being properly managed by the petitioner/defendant No.1, as it ought to have been managed. The application i.e. CMA No. 413/6 of 2014 in Civil Suit No. 1/2014, titled Jagat Ram & another versus Bhagat Ram Dass and others, was allowed by the Court below vide order dated 5.9.2014, without issuance of notice to the present petitioner for providing opportunity of being heard. It has further been alleged that suit under Section 92 CPC was instituted and written statement was filed by defendant No.1 and also by defendants No. 2(1) to 2(16) and by defendant No.2 separately. It has further been alleged that as a consequence of issuance of the notice to the general public, defendants No. 2(1) to 2(59) have registered their representation and such representation has been duly acknowledged by the learned trial Court and it has resulted in arraying them as defendants No. 1(2) to 2 (59), which has caused the amendment in memo. of parties of the suit in question. It has further been averred that when the pleadings of the parties were complete, and the petitioner/defendant No.1 had taken a specific plea of maintainability of the suit. An application under Section 151 CPC (CMP No.353/6 of 2016) was preferred for recalling the order dated 5.9.2014, which was passed on an application bearing No.413/6 of 2014 in Civil Suit No.1 of 2014, vide which permission under Section 92 CPC had been granted to the respondents/plaintiffs at the back of the applicant/present petitioner to institute a suit against the petitioner for his removal from maintaining and worshipping temple of Sri Ram Chandra Ji and Laxmi Narayan Ji at Dhabeta/Swarghat, Tehsil Sri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. By filing of reply, the said application was opposed by respondents No.1 and 2 and defendants No. 2(17) to 2(59) and after hearing the parties, the learned District Judge vide order dated 20.6.2016 dismissed the same.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Court below was required to allow the application and the order of the learned District Judge dated 5.2.2014 was required to be recalled. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and has also framed the preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the suit and still they have an opportunity of being heard and to lead evidence.

5. In the order dated 20.6.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, it has held in para-7 of the order, as under :-

“The aforesaid case pleaded by both the parties shows that there is a material controversy between the parties as to whether the suit property is