Dismissed¶¶29

Dev Rattan v. Shiv Mandir Alias Gram Sudhar Samiti and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2025ESA/6/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution second appeal; ESA-6-2020 (O&M); ESA-7-2020 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; Chandigarh; Anil Kshetarpal J.; decided 15.05.2025; decree-holder appeal; objection petition in execution; temple society Shri Shiv Mandir @ Gram Sudhar Samiti; deity not impleaded as party; property belongs to deity; new office-bearers elected but not impleaded; tenancy claimed through father who was Mahant; suit for mandatory and permanent injunction decreed 12.11.2014; objections dismissed 26.07.2017; remand to Executing Court for fresh decision; no ground to interfere; both appeals dismissed; miscellaneous applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

It is evident that the deity was never impleaded as a party to the suit, even though the property belongs to the deity as there is a temple of Lord Shiva. ¶¶24

Dev Rattan Vs Shiv Mandir Alias Gram Sudhar Samiti and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether any ground is made out to interfere with the First Appellate Court's order remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh decision on the objections filed by the society. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out in the order passed by the First Appellate Court remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh decision; accordingly, both the execution second appeals were dismissed and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

It is evident that the deity was never impleaded as a party to the suit, even though the property belongs to the deity as there is a temple of Lord Shiva.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

Although an election had taken place and a new body of office-bearers was inducted, they too were not impleaded as a party; further, the appellant claims to have been inducted as a tenant by his father (who was Mahant of the Mandir), and the society claims the suit was filed in collusion with the former office-bearers.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Anil Kshetarpal, J.), 15.05.2025 — Execution Second Appeals ESA-6-2020 (O&M) and ESA-7-2020 (O&M) by decree-holders Dev Rattan (deceased) through his legal representatives and Ram Narayan against the First Appellate Court's order remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh decision on the objection petition filed by Shri Shiv Mandir @ Gram Sudhar Samiti (the society managing the temple): HELD — the property belongs to the deity (temple of Lord Shiva) and the deity was never impleaded as a party to the suit; although an election had taken place and a new body of office-bearers was inducted, they were also not impleaded; the appellant claims to have been inducted as a tenant by his father, who was the Mahant of the Mandir, and the society claims the suit was filed in collusion with the former office-bearers. Keeping in view these facts, no ground to interfere with the remand order was made out; both appeals dismissed; all pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

ESA-6-2020 (O&M) -1ESA-7-2020 (O&M)

¶2

125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision : 15.05.2025 1. ESA-6-2020 (O&M)

¶4

Dev Rattan (deceased) through his legal representatives ...Appellant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Shri Shiv Mandir @ Gram Sudhar Samiti and others ...Respondents

¶7

2. ESA-7-2020 (O&M)

¶8

Ram Narayan ...Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Shri Shiv Mandir @ Gram Sudhar Samiti and others ...Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶12

Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶13

Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in both the cases).

¶14

¶15

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

¶16

With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, two connected execution second appeals, shall stand disposed of by this common order.

¶17

The decree-holder assails the correctness of the First Appellate Court's order remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for fresh

¶18

NEERAJ 2025.05.20 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

ESA-6-2020 (O&M) -2ESA-7-2020 (O&M)

¶20

decision. The appellant claims that his father, who was Mahant of the Mandir inducted him as a tenant. He filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against certain former office-bearers, which was decreed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the First Appellate Court on 12.11.2014. Subsequently, the office-bearers filed objections in the execution petition, which were dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2017.

¶21

The property belongs to deity because there is a temple of Lord Shiva. The deity is not a party to the suit. The objection petition was filed by the society, which manages the temple. The Executing Court dismissed the same but the First Appellate Court remitted the matter back to the Executing Court consider the objections in detail.

¶22

Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that similar objections filed by the office-bearers have been rejected and two separate suits filed by the society were either dismissed in default or withdrawn.

¶23

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties.

¶24

It is evident that the deity was never impleaded as a party. It is also evident that society claims that the suit was filed in collusion with the former office-bearers. In fact, the election had taken place and new body of office-bearers was inducted, however, they were not impleaded as a party. Most importantly, the petitioner claims to have been inducted as a tenant by his father.

¶25