IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.667 of 2022 Decided on: 09.11.2023 Mahant Nand Lal (deceased)

through his LRs Jai Ram & others …Petitioners.

Versus Shankar Singh & others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 4 5 and 6.

None for remaining respondents.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral g By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the iConstitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 06.12.2022, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 7, Rules 11 (a), (b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that contesting respondents Shankar Singh Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

and Rajender Pal have instituted a suit for removal removal of predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners from the office of Vahetamam/ Manager of Mandir Thakurdwa.ra Sita Ramji, situated at Village Bari Majherwan, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.Pf., on account of mis- management and mis-appropriation of the temple property, including the allegation thtat the temple property was sold by predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners in their favour, who happened to be his sons. In terms of the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that they were residents of the area and were interested both in the temple and property thereof including its management being local residents of the area. The suit was gfiled in the year 2005. During the pendency of the suit, the ioriginal defendant died and the present petitioners were substituted as defendants. In the year 2022, when the case was at the stage of recording of the statements of defendants’ witnesses, an application was filed under Order 7, Rules 11 (a), (b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioners, praying for rejection of the plaint. The averments made in the application, which were completely vague, are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

“(1) That the present suit is pending before the hon’ble Court and the next date of hearing is 1-4-

2022 for DW (2) That the plaint if read as a whole does not disclose any cause of acftion therefore deserves to be dismissed.

(3) that it appears from the statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by law hence deserves to be dismissed.

(4) That the hon’ble Court has the power and jurisdiction to hear and decide the application.

C(5) That proper Court fee has not been affixed in the plaint, hence deserves to be dismissed.”

3. The application was opposed by the non-applicants. 4. In terms of impugned order dated 06.12.2022, the application has been dismissed by the learned Court below, inter alia, by holding that the same was filed after a lapse of seventeen years at a belated stage when the case was at the stage of recording the statements of defendants’ witnesses which demonstrated that the intent of the petitioners was to delay the proceedings and five points mentioned in the application, on the basis of which the rejection of the plaint was being sought, had not been expanded in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to prove that .the application was maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected, as it did not disclose any cause of actionf. Learned Trial Court also held that a perusal of the plaint otherwise demonstrated that there was cause of actiotn pleaded therein as reference was with regard to mis-management and mis-appropriation of the temple property, on which detailed written statement was filed by the defendants. Learned Court below further held that controversy between the parties could be put to rest after deciding the issues involved in the case rather than dismissing gor rejecting the plaint on technical grou