The right to worship is a civil right but does not confer ownership or interest in unauthorized constructions on public land, and suits under Section 91 of the CPC require personal interest.

JUDGMENT

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:

1. The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 24.03.2023 passed in CS No. 710/2018 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgment"], which dismissed the Appellant's suit for permanent and mandatory injunction along with damages against the Respondents.

2. On 19.05.2023, a Coordinate bench of this Court issued notice in the present appeal and put the Impugned Judgment in abeyance until the next hearing, which continued during the pendency of this Appeal.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present matter reads as follows:

4. The Appellant, claiming to be a local resident and worshipper at the Shiv Temple located in Shiv Park, Kondli Sabji Mandi, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "suit land"], filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction along with damages exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs against the Respondent/ DDA and the Respondent/SHO, P.S. Gazipur. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent/ DDA intended to demolish the Shiv Temple, which was built on the suit land. It is contended that the suit land was donated in the year 1969 by local people. It was further contended that the certain “bad elements” of the locality had also started using the park for illegal gambling and imbibing alcohol etc., in and around the suit land and that despite complaints made to the Respondent/SHO, no action had been taken. It was further contended that Respondent/SHO had taken away an idol of lord Hanuman from the said temple in the year 1994. The Appellant, thus, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages to the tune of Rs.3,05,000/- against the Respondents.

5. The suit was contested by only Respondent/ DDA before the learned Trial Court. The Respondent/ DDA in its written statement took a preliminary objection that no notice under Section 53B of Delhi Development Act , 1957 [hereinafter referred to as “ DDA Act”] had been served upon Respondent/ DDA . It was further contended that the suit land was government property, acquired via Award No. 40/1978-79, and that the temple was an unauthorized construction. The Respondent/ DDA further stated in its written statement that the requisite action had already been initiated with respect to removal of the unauthorised construction which could not be affected due to non-availability of police force.

6. An application was filed by the Appellant under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”] praying for passing of a judgment on admissions in view of the fact that Respondent/ DDA had raised vague and ambiguous defences and did not deny the contents of the Plaint, thus the Appellant was entitled to a judgment on admissions.

7. The learned Trial Court by its Order dated 15.07.2020, dismissed the Application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, by Appellant directing that:

(i) The Appellant's claim of land donation for the Shiv Temple lacks documentary evidence, both regarding the donation itself and the original ownership of the purported donor.

(ii) The temple priest, has neither filed the suit nor been made a co-plaintiff, and as such it casts doubt over the Appellant's locus standi to file the suit. That the Appellant failed to demonstrate any personal or ancestral financial contribution to its construction or the installation of deities and, in light of this, it is observed that the Appellant’s attempt to claim damages in the name of the temple is questionable, given that neither the temple, its priest, nor its management committee are parties to the suit.

7.1 The learned Trial Court further distinguished between the Right to Worship, which is a civil right that can be enforced individually, and the right to seek injunction regarding immovable property. Referring to Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act , 1963 [hereinafter referred to as “the SRA ”], the Court emphasized that for an injunction relating to immovable property, the plaintiff must demonstrate a personal interest in