The appellate court cannot interfere with a trial court's interim order unless it is proven to be erroneous or perverse.

JUDGMENT :

1) By this common judgment, the afore titled two cases challenging order dated 30.12.2013 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, are proposed to be disposed of.

2) It appears that the respondent Trust has filed three different suits before the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar, challenging three different decrees passed by the said Court on 28.02.1997, whereby the petitioners in OWP No.143/2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the writ petitioners”) and the appellants in MA No.99/2014, have been declared as owners in possession of land measuring around 08 kanals situated at Gupt Ganga, Nishat, Srinagar. It seems that the two suits against the writ petitioners were dismissed for non-prosecution on 2nd March, 2009, but later on these two suits were restored by the learned trial court in terms of orders dated 10.12.2009. These orders of restoration of the two suits came to be challenged by the writ petitioners by virtue of Civil Revision Petition Nos.40 and 41 of 2013.

3) It also appears that the writ petitioners also filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned trial court in respect of the property which was subject matter of the suits filed by the respondent Trust against the petitioners. In the said suit, the respondent Trust filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC for staying of the suit filed by the writ petitioners and the same was allowed by the trial court on 29.07.2013. The said order came to be challenged by the writ petitioners by way of a writ petition bearing OWP No.1151/2013. The said writ petition along with Civil Revision Petition Nos.40/2013 and 41/2013, was decided by this Court on 10.09.2013 by a common order. By virtue of the said order, civil revision petitions filed by the writ petitioners were dismissed and their writ petition challenging the order of staying of their suit was allowed and the trial court was directed to consolidate the suit filed by the respondent Trust and the suit filed by the writ petitioners together. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid three cases also directed the parties to maintain status quo with a clarification that the maintenance of status quo shall not come in the way of the devotees to offer their prayers in the temple. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 16th September, 2013, and the aforesaid order was to remain in operation till then.

4) It seems that the respondent Trust filed applications in all the three suits pending before the trial court, in which the decrees passed in favour of the writ petitioners/appellants were under challenge, praying therein that the defendants be restrained from creating obstruction in smooth access of the devotees at main entrance in matter of performing religious and customary rituals in the temple existing on the suit property in conformity with the order dated 10th September, 2013, passed by this Court. The defendants in all the three suits filed their objections to the said applications and also filed their written statements in all the three suits.

5) While the aforesaid applications were pending disposal before the learned trial court, another application came to be filed by the respondent Trust on the last day of closing of the Courts for vacation i.e. 30th December, 2013, with a prayer that order dated 10th September, 2013, passed by the High Court, so far it permits the devotees to offer prayers in the temple existing on the suit land, may be extended. The learned trial court passed an exparte order on the same day and as an interim arrangement directed that the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the suit property but the devotees shall be at liberty to offer their prayers in the temple. The said order was to remain in operation till disposal of the interim applications already made by the respondent Trust. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court in the afore titled two cases.

6) The ground urged by the writ petiti