$~12 & 1(OS) to 10(OS)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 22^nd February, 2022

+

RFA 412/2021

RAKESH BHARDWAJ

..... Appellant

Through:

versus

MAHANT SURENDER NATH

..... Respondent

Through:

WITH

+

CS (OS) 525/2021

+

CS (OS) 526/2021

+

CS (OS) 535/2021

+

CS (OS) 579/2021

+

CS (OS) 539/2021

+

CS (OS) 540/2021

+

CS (OS) 542/2021

+

CS (OS) 543/2021

+

CS (OS) 554/2021

+

CS (OS) 648/2021

Appearances:-

Mr. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for Defendant No.1 in CS (OS) 525/2021.

(M:9312710547)

Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for Defendant No.2 in CS (OS) 526/2021

Mr. Rohit Kishan Naagpal & Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates.

(M:9873730191)

Ms. Kiran, Advocate for Plaintiff in CS (OS) 648/2021. (M:9818893995)

Mr. R.R. Singh and Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, Advocates for Defendant.

(M:9910003491)

Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate.

Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Plaintiff. (M:9350301058)

Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate for Respondent in CS (OS) 543/2021.

(M:8860456420)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2022:DHC:750

2. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has

been hearing from time to time. These are part-heard matters.

3. Vide order dated 27^th September 2021, the present matters pertaining

to the Kalkaji Mandir were transferred to this Court under Section 24 of The

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

RFA 412/2021

4. The present first appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 30^th

July, 2018 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, South-East, Saket District Courts,

New Delhi (hereinafter, “Trial Court”) in Civil Suit No.51666/2016 titled

Rakesh Bharadwaj & Anr. v. Surinder Nath @ Surinder Kumar. By the

impugned order, the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the

Appellants-Plaintiffs (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) has been dismissed by the

Trial Court.

5. The reliefs sought in the plaint include a declaration to the effect that

the Respondent-Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) is not the Mahant of

the Kalkaji Mandir and that he has no right, title, interest, claim or share to

perform the Pooja Sewa or Archana or to collect Tehbazaari. The said

reliefs have been extracted below:

“A.

2022:DHC:750

thereby restraining the defendant.”

6.

It is noticed that the impugned order dated 30^th July, 2018 is a

handwritten order. Accordingly, let the typed copy of the impugned order be

placed on record by the next date by ld. Counsel for the Appellant.

7.

Mr. Nandrajog, ld. Counsel for the Defendant, submits that the

present first appeal was listed before the ld. Additional District Judge,

initially. In view thereof, the parties may be deprived of one appellate

remedy if this Court adjudicates this matter. This Court shall consider the

same after the typed copy of the impugned order is placed on record.

8.

List on 27^th April, 2022, at 2:30 pm.

CS (OS) 525/2021

9.

On the last date before this Court, i.e., 9^th December, 2021, notice was

directed to be issued to the counsels for the parties appearing before the

Trial Court.

10. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has entered appearance today.

Defendant No.1 - Shri Lakhmi Chand Alias Lakhu, who is a pujari, is

represented by Mr. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, ld. counsel.

11. The Registry has reported that the notice has also been issued to the

ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs through WhatsApp. In addition, it is a well-

2022:DHC:750

known fact that this Court is seized of all matters relating to the Kalkaji

Mandir premises. However, none appears for the Plaintiffs today.

12. In the present suit, the Plaintiffs claim that one Smt. Bhagwati

inducted the Plaintiffs into the premises of the Kalkaji Mandir, as tenants.

The case of the Plaintiffs is that the said Smt. Bhagwati had given

permission to the Plaintiffs to reside in the said Dharamshala and pay