Uttarakhand High Court
Maa Chandi Devi Temple Trust & Another vs Rohit Giri & Others on 17 December, 2014
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
AO No.610/14 Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no.1. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants as well as learned counsel for the caveator, it transpires that in the Original Suit No.77 of 2014, prayer seeking ad interim injunction was rejected by the impugned order dated 17.11.2014 and at the same, application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also rejected.
Learned counsel for the caveator has urged before the Court that against the rejection of Order 7 Rule 11 application, he has to file a revision and in all probabilities, he will file the same within a day or two because that is under preparation. So, in the fitness of things, it will be appropriate to hear both the matters together as they are intermingled with each other.
It was further prayed and agreed by both the parties that the L.C.R. may be called in order to appreciate a number of original documents produced by either party before the lower court. Let the L.C.R. be called immediately. Registry will send requisition to call the L.C.R. forthwith.
List this matter, as requested by learned counsel for the caveator, on 23.12.2014 as fresh and if the revision is filed, that too will be connected with this matter.
Meanwhile, it is hereby directed that as per the directions issued in WPPIL No.2 of 2011, on dated 3.1.2012, the caveator/ defendant will show as to how he is maintaining the transparency in obtaining various donations and expenditure of the temple.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 17.12.2014 Rdang