$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 29/2026, CM APPL.7321/2026 (stay), CM APPL.7322/2026 (stay)

JAGDISH RAM .....Appellant Through: Counsel for Appellant (appearance not given)

versus GURU RAVIDAS DHARAMSTHAN PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE (REGD.) .....Respondent Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026 CM APPL. 7320/2026 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

RSA 29/2026

3. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), has been filed on behalf of the Appellant to set-aside the Order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi whereby the Order of the learned Civil Judge whereby the Suit for Permanent Injunction filed by the Respondent, had been decreed vide Judgment dated 04.08.2025 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC directing the Appellant to vacate the Suit premises, has been upheld.

4. The brief facts of the Case are that the Respondent Committee was formed to look after Shri Guru Ravidas Dharamsthan at Moti Bagh-I, New Delhi and was registered vide Registration No. S/11144 dated 30.08.1980.

Shri Guru Ravidas Dharamsthan came into existence since prior to 1970.

5. In the year 1999, the Appellant/Defendant, who was an electrician by profession, requested the Committee to provide him a job at the Mandir. Upon his request, he was allowed to work as Puraji and was provided with a room to reside therein, vide the General Body Meeting of Shri Guru Ravidas Prabandhak Committee held on 26.01.2000. The conditions of appointment were that he would perform religious duties at the Dharamsthan and pay the bills of electricity and water. As per the condition of appointment, the Appellant was to vacate the premises on expiry of one month’s Notice served on him, by the Prabandhak Committee.

6. The Appellant along with his family came to live in the room provided by the Respondent as a Licensee.

7. The Respondent claimed that the Appellant failed to take care of his duties. Therefore, in the Meeting dated 02.06.2019, the Committee asked the Appellant to vacate the premises as he was not performing his duties and had failed to pay the electricity bills for past three years.

8. The decision of the Committee in the Meeting held on 02.06.2019, which was communicated to the Appellant and he was asked to vacate the premises by 31.07.2019.

9. The Appellant agreed to vacate but he instead filed a Police Complaint with the false averments. He also filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction against the Plaintiff/Respondent. Since the Appellant failed to vacate the room in question, the Suit for Mandatory Injunction, Declaration and Recovery of Water and Electricity Charges, was filed by the Respondent.

10. The Appellant in his Written Statement took the defence that the Suit was liable to be stayed under Order 10 CPC as there was another Suit already pending between the parties. The Defendant as Pujari of Dharamsthan, had been residing along with his family for last 22 years and has been performing his duties as Pujari since 1999. The Trust was created by the Respondent, to manage the Mandir only and has no control over the Pujari or the Mandir. The Pujariship is a hereditary religious office. The Respondent has no right to remove the Appellant.

11. It was further asserted by the Appellant that he has been paying Electricity and other charges, to Sh. Shanti Lal since 1999. He was threatened to leave the Mandir premises, which led to his filing a Police Complaint on 29.07.2019. All the averments made in the Plaint by the Respondent, were denied.

12. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed an Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide Judgment dated

04.08.2025.

13. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant preferred a Regular First Appeal before the learned District Judge but herein also, the Appeal was dismissed.

14. The substan