licence had been revoked / terminated by respondent no.1-Sabha on 30.07.1997, then the grandfather of the petitioner had no right to thereafter perform puja and to interfere in the management and affairs of the temples. It has also been affirmatively held that there was no permanent right with the grandfather to keep performing duties of Pujari nor the said licence granted was heritable. Thus, once the grandfather of the petitioner, who was initially licenced to perform puja, was held not to have any right to continue to perform puja after the termination of his licence, then, the present petitioner, who had never been granted a licence to perform puja by respondent no.1, could not possibly claim any right to perform puja in the two temples in question. It has also come on record that the petitioner had got himself impleaded as the LR of the grandfather, after the death of his grandfather during the pendency of the earlier suit and had pursued the earlier round of litigation and was thus, aware of the observations / findings of the High Court which were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, any attempt of the petitioner to perform puja subsequent to the passing of the said order is absolutely illegal. Any interference by this Court in favour of the petitioner would in effect result in reopening of the matter, which has been settled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said circumstances, the trial Court as well as the Ist Appellate Court in the present case had rightly come to the conclusion that the respondents had prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and irreparable loss would be suffered by the respondents in case the petitioner is not Davinder Kumar 2025.02.24 10:19 injuncted from interfering in performing of puja and duties in both the I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment
