Dismissed¶65

Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple v. S.Jadav Chand Kanuga

Madras HC1 Apr 2025OSA/111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

O.S.A.No.111 of 2025, Madras High Court, decided 01.04.2025 by Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan: interim injunction restraining installation of an Acharya's idol in a Jain temple pending a Section 92 CPC Scheme suit upheld; single-plaintiff application for ad interim relief held maintainable; appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 O.S. Rules dismissed; trial directed to be completed within three months.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the impugned interim injunction restraining installation of the Acharya's idol effectively stands upheld. Directions issued that the trial continue unhindered and be completed within three months from upload of this order. No costs. ¶65

Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple Vs S.Jadav Chand Kanuga — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether an application for ad interim relief in a suit under Section 92 CPC can be entertained when filed by a single individual, given that Section 92 requires two or more persons connected with the public trust to approach the Court. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

There is no hard and fast rule requiring a minimum of two members to approach the Court seeking ad interim relief; in any event, the maintainability of the single-plaintiff application was not contested before the learned single Judge.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Having received the application and neither contesting it nor filing an appeal against the single Judge's order dated 28.06.2024, the other plaintiffs are inferred to sail with the respondent (6th plaintiff) in support of the application; senior counsel also assured the Bench that his views are endorsed by the other plaintiffs.

¶37

Key takeaways

Whether the idols of Tirthankaras alone are to be housed in the Temple or even those of Acharyas is a matter that must be decided by the members of the Jain community alone through the Scheme; it was therefore premature ('cart before the horse') for the appellants to seek installation and consecration of the Acharya's idol pending that decision.ratio¶52
To balance the interests of all parties, consecration of the idol must await a decision in the suit; pre-empting that decision by going ahead with installation would be inappropriate, and if the members later favour installation of Acharya idols it may always be undertaken in future.ratio¶59
The argument that a statue of some other Acharya has already been consecrated in the Temple does not assist the appellants; what has been done is done, and the community and devotees must take a collective decision on the idol already consecrated as well as on the future.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.S.No.1014 of 2008 (Section 92 CPC) - suit by seven individuals for framing a Scheme for management and administration of Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple, Chennai, appointment of a Board of Trustees and handover of charge. Pending suit, O.A.No.39 of 2024 by the 6th plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining installation of the idol of the Acharya (Phalodi Ratna Param Pujya Athyatmayogi Archarya Bhagawant Sri Vijay Kalpurnasurishwarji Maharaj Saheb); the single Judge's order dated 28.06.2024 was challenged under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules. Held: (i) no hard and fast rule that a minimum of two members must join to seek ad interim relief; maintainability uncontested below, and the other plaintiffs, having neither contested nor appealed, sail with the applicant; (ii) whether idols of Tirthankaras alone or also of Acharyas are to be housed is a matter for the Jain community alone via the Scheme - consecrating the idol pending the Scheme put 'the cart before the horse' and was rightly checked; (iii) the prior consecration of another Acharya's statue does not justify further installation, and the Centenary exigency of 2024 having passed, there is no urgency; (iv) the Working Committee's 20-plus-year unelected tenure underscores the urgency of framing the Scheme. Appeal dismissed with directions that the trial before the IV Additional Master conclude within three months, unhindered by these observations. No costs.

¶1

2025:MHC:1072

¶2

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 01.04.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶8

Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple Through its Managing Body Sri Choolai Bazaar Jain Singh @ Shri Choolai Jain Sangh @Shri Choolai Moortipujak Jain Sangh Sri Sangh Choolai Bazaar situated at No.38, Venkatachala Mudali Street, Choolai, Chennai -600 112 and its working committee consisting of a) Rajendra Kumar Kochar b) Hemchand Vaid c)Tarachand Kochar d) Punamchand Dakalia e) Lalchand Lunavat alias Milapchand Lunavat f)Sunilkumar Sancheti g)Heeralal Golecha h)Heerachand Nimani i) Rajendrakumar Kanuga

¶9

2.Sri Prakash Chand Golecha

¶10

.. Appellants

¶11

¶12

1.S.Jadav Chand Kanuga 2.Ratan Chand Chhallani 3.G.Ashok Chand Dakalia

¶13

1/9

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶16

4.K.Tarachand Golecha

¶17

5.Suresh Chand Jhabak

¶18

6.J.Harak Chand Golecha 7.T.Shanthilal Golecha

¶19

.. Respondents

¶20

Prayer : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules to set aside order dated 28.06.2024 made in O.A.No.39 of 2024 in C.S.No. 1014 of 2008.

¶21

For Appellants : Mr.P.Sunil for Mr.T.Vishwanatha Rao For Respondents : Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda Senior Counsel for Ms.Dipthimunoth for R6 R1, R2, R3, R3 to R5, R7 – not ready in notice

¶22

JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶23

The appellant is the Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple (in short 'Temple') represented by its Working Committee comprising nine persons, and an other person in an individual capacity.

¶24

The suit was instituted by seven individuals under Section 92 of

¶25

the Code of Civil Procedure seeking framing of a Scheme for the management and administration of the Temple, appointment of a Board of Trustees and a direction to the defendants to handover charge of the Temple to the Board of Trustees once constituted by this Court.

¶26

2/9

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶29

The Working Committee of the Temple and another individual are the defendants in C.S.No.1014 of 2008. An application in A.No.457 of 2011 had been filed by R6 and R7, seeking leave to institute a suit. The learned Judge had noted that the cause of action espoused by the applicants was the same as espoused by plaintiffs in C.S.No.1014 of 2008 and they were hence impleaded in the suit. C.S.No.1014 of 2008 thus continues now with seven plaintiffs instead of the original five.

¶30

Pending suit, O.A.No.39 of 2024 was taken by the 6^th plaintiff. The prayer in that application was for an interim injunction restraining the Temple, the Working Committee and R2 from installing the idol of Phalodi Ratna Param Pujya Athyatmayogi Archarya Bhagawant Sri Vijay Kalpurnasurishwarji Maharaj Saheb (in short 'Acharya') in the premises of the Temple. The application had come to be dismissed on 28.06.2024 as against which the present appeal has been filed.

¶31

The first objection of the appellant is that the suit had been instituted under Section 92 of CPC, which requires two or more Trustees of the Public Trust to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief. Hence, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained an application filed only by a single individual as he does not represent the views of the Jain community.

¶32

3/9

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶35

We had posed a specific query in this regard to Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.Dipthimunoth, learned counsel for R6 and are assured that though the application was filed only by one of the plaintiffs, the views canvassed by him are endorsed by the other plaintiffs as well.

¶36

In order to satisfy ourselves of this position we had called for the suit and find that it contains an acknowledgement of receipt of the original application upon the other plaintiffs as well. Hence, we draw inference that having received the application and neither contested nor filed an appeal against order of the single Judge dated 28.06.2024, the other plaintiffs do sail with the respondent in this appeal.

¶37

In any event, we find no hard and fast rule on this score. It is true that Section 92 requires two members of the Board of Trustees to approach this Court seeking relief, including formation of Scheme for management of the assets of a Public Trust. This has been done in this case.

¶38

It is not, in our view, necessary for a minimum of two members to approach the Court seeking ad interim relief, and in any event, the maintainability of the application has not been contested before the learned single Judge.

¶39

4/9

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶42

Shorn of all details, the prayer of the 6^th plaintiff was to restrain

¶43

the Temple and the other appellants from permitting the installation of the idol of the Acharya in the Temple premises. The said application had come to be allowed by way of impugned order dated 28.06.2024.

¶44

The learned Judge has opined that permitting the appellants from installing the idol of the Acharya in the Temple premises would not be an appropriate move at this juncture as the Court was seized of the larger issue of framing of a Scheme for the management and administration of the Temple. The installation of the idol of the Acharya involved, inter alia, construction of a small shrine to house the idol and the learned Judge has opined that permitting new construction and installation of idols would hinder the progress of the suit.

¶45

The appellants represented by Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel would argue that such findings were erroneous since the Temple had already housed the idol of one Acharya and hence there can be no objection to the installation of another.

¶46

We have heard the rival contentions carefully. The Temple had been consecrated in the year 1896 and is of the Jain faith. We consciously disavow reference to the particular facts in relation to the constitution of the Temple or its management, since those aspects would have to be tested 5/9

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶49

in the course of trial paving the way for framing of a Scheme for its administration.

¶50

The present Working Committee has been in management for more than 20 years and though there are various allegations against their working, we find that they have been permitted to continue to manage the affairs of the Temple by order of this Court dated 10.07.2005.

¶51

Hence, it would suffice to say that the unusually long tenure of the Committee and the absence of a democratic process would itself be a pointer to the urgency of a Scheme being framed.

¶52

The Scheme, is expected to address important issues, including the manner in which elections are to be conducted and whether the idols of Tirthankaras alone are to be housed in the Temple or even those of Acharyas. Such matters must be decided by the members of the Jain community alone and we are thus of the considered view that it was premature for the appellant to have sought installation and consecration of the idol of the Acharya pending such decision.

¶53

By proceeding to consecrate the idol of Acharya even pending formulation of the Scheme, the appellants had put the cart before the horse that has been rightly checked by way of the Application filed by the respondents and intervention by this Court.

¶54

6/9

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶57

We are not impressed with the argument that a Statute of some other Acharya has already been consecrated in the Temple. What has been done is done. It is for the members of the concerned community and the devotees who worship in the Temple to now take a collective decision on what they wish to do, both in respect of the idol already consecrated as well as in respect of the future.

¶58

There is certainly some merit in moving forward in a measured manner pending suit, so that all considerations may be weighed in arriving at decisions with the consensus of all community members and without rushing into matters head-long. Incidentally, we may also state that the appellants had sought to consecrate the idol on the eve of the Centenary of the Acharya, in 2024. That exigency has now passed and there is no urgency for any such action to be taken now.

¶59

Hence, in order to balance the interests of all parties, we of the view that consecration of the idol must await a decision in the suit. Preempting such a decision and going ahead with the installation would, we agree, be inappropriate at this juncture. After all, if the members take a decision that favour the installation of idols of Acharyas, such installation may always be undertaken in future.

¶60

It is a matter of surprise that the Temple is being run for more

¶61

7/9

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

O.S.A.No. 111 of 2025

¶64

than a century without a proper Committee to oversee the functioning of the same and it is high time that a Scheme is formulated for its administration. We are given to understand that the matter is presently before the IV Additional Master for trial. Let the trial continue unhindered by any of the observations in this order and be completed within a period of three (3) months from date of uploading of this order in the official website of this Court.

¶65