Delhi District Court
Sh. Gurmeet Singh vs Sh. Lakhwinder Singh & Anr on 20 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K. AGRAWAL CIVIL JUDGE01
( WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S No. : 255/14
Sh. Gurmeet Singh
................Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. Lakhwinder Singh & Anr.
........... Defendant
ORDER
Vide this order I shall dispose of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 filed on behalf of plaintiff.
1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff states that there is a Gurudwara situated at Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, which has been constructed by member of Namdhari Community for the benefit of all the members of the community. The defendants with the help of undesirable elements, were obstructing the plaintiff from entering in the Gurudwara and performing religious rites in the same. Further stated that the defendants also want to grab the assets of the Gurudwara in the above manner. C.S No. 255/14 1/8 Thereafter on 10.11.2013, when the plaintiff alongwith his family members visited the Gurudwara, the defendants obstructed them and also threatened to implicate the plaintiff and his family in false and frivolous case. The plaintiff has further stated that the Gurudwara is a public property and everyone has a right to enter the same and the defendants cannot claim any personal right over the said Gurudwara. Hence this suit was filed.
2. Only defendant no.2 filed his Written Statement (WS) as Defendant no.1 is being proceeded exparte. In the WS, defendant no. 2 has stated that he is the president of the Managing committee of the said Gurudwara, which was appointed by Sh. Satguru Jagjeet Singh Ji and after his demise, the managing committee has been authorised to carry on and manage day to day affairs of the Gurudwara by the present living Guru Sh. Satguru Uday Singh Ji. It is further stated that some antisocial elements who are not obeying the instructions of Guru Sh. Satguru Uday Singh Ji, are playing in the hands of one Thakur Dilip Singh and intentionally trying to start Murti Puja in the Gurudwara, which is not permissible as per the tenets of Namdhari Panth. It is further stated that on 17.09.2013, those elements created violence and caused obstructions in the performance of religious functions due to which the Gurudwara was closed for some time for maintenance of peace, on the advice of Police. Moreover even though the C.S No. 255/14 2/8 Gurudwara is closed, still all the functions and religious rites are being performed in the same. It is further stated that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. Other averments in the plaint was also denied by the defendant.
3. In the replication, the plaintiff denied that defendant no.2 was president of the managing committee of Gurudwara. It was also denied that the plaintiff wanted to place photographs of previous Guru in the Palki of the Gurudwara. Other averments of WS were also denied and facts mentioned in the plaint were reaffirmed.
4. By way of the present application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC, the plaintiff is praying for the interim relief that the defendants and their associates etc. be restrained from obstructing the plaintiff and other members of the community from entering into the Gurudwara and performing lawful religious functions and rites. He is further seeking injunction thereby restraining the defendant from putting any lock over the Gurudwara and preventing the public at large from using the Gurudwara. Further he is also seeking injunction thereby directing the defendants to remove the lock from Gurudwara till the disposal of the suit.
C.S No. 255/14 3/8
5. In the reply to the said application the defendant no.2 has reiterated the same averments as made in the WS. It was also denied that there was any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff or that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff.
6. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and carefully perused the record. The law is well settled regarding the grant of interim injunction. Applicant has to prove three basic ingredients for grant of interim injunction:
1. existence of prima facie case.
2. balance of convenience
3. irreparable injury
7. In Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi 1993 SCC (3) 161, it has been observed and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: "It has been pointed out repeatedly that a party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right or course., Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the Court and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or C.S No. 255/14 4/8 damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary injunction is, thus, to maintain the status quo. The Court grants such relief according to the legal principlesex debite justitiae. Before any such order is passed the Court must be satisfied that a strong primafacie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him.
8. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have put a lock on the Gurudwara and are not permitting the followers of Namdhari Community from visiting the Gurudwara and performing their religious functions. As regards the prima facie case is concerned, the plaintiff's plaint does not make out a prima facie case. The plaintiff has not specified in what capacity he has filed this suit. It has apparently been filed in an individual capacity however the plaintiff is seeking relief for the entire Namdhari community people at large as per his prayer portion. In these circumstances, he ought to have filed a Representative suit.
9. Further it is not clear from the plaint, as to what is the status of defendants qua the Gurudwara in question. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have put a lock on the same. In what capacity the defendants C.S No. 255/14 5/8 have done so, is not specified in the plaint. This question assumes significance in view of the fact that a Gurudwara is normally either run by a registered Society or by a Managing Committee duly elected by the members of the community. The plaint is silent as to who manages the Gurudwara in question. The plaintiff has also not mentioned in his plaint whether he had pursued the matter with the managing committee of Gurudwara or not or to any other authority which is looking after the day to day functioning of the Gurudwara. Infact in the WS, the defendant no.2 had claimed that he was president of the managing committee of the Gurudwara, however the plaintiff had denied this fact in his replication. In these circumstance the plaintiff ought to have brought to the notice of the court as to who was managing the Gurudwara. He should have also made the managing committee of Gurudwara or the society as the case may be, a defendant in this case. The suit ought not to have been filed against the defendants in their individual capacity.
10. As regards the existence of balance of convenience and irreparable loss is concerned, the plaintiff could not explain as to why he wants to worship in this particular Gurudwara itself. It is worth mentioning that even though inconvenience would be caused to the plaintiff by not being able to perform religious functions in the Gurudwara in question, however no irreparable C.S No. 255/14 6/8 loss would be caused to him as he can easily visit other Gurudwaras in the city to offer prayers and perform religious rites especially when the suit has been filed in the individual capacity.
11. Lastly and most importantly, it is also worth mentioning that perusal of prayer portion of plaint as well as that of present application for temporary injunction would reveal that both the reliefs prayed are identical. If the present application is allowed, than the same would have the effect of decreeing the suit itself in favour of plaintiff. In the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Idea Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Trans Asian Industries Expositions 157 (2009) DLT 674 it has been categorically held that no relief which has the effect of decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff can be granted in an application of temporary injunction. Further in Delhi & District Cricket Association Vs Rajnish Aggarwal & Ors. F.A.O. No. 146 of 2013 & C.M. No.4806/2013 decided on 31st May, 2013, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while setting aside the order of the Trial Court observed that:
"The relief which has been claimed by the appellant in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC happens to be the same relief which was claimed in the main petition and the learned trial court does not seem to be cognizant of the fact that while granting the interim relief to the respondent C.S No. 255/14 7/8 Nos.1 & 2, it has kept in view that it is practically decreeing the suit of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and that too without permitting the parties to adduce evidence."
12. The position in the instant case is also the same as the reliefs prayed in plaint and the present application are identical, so the relief cannot be granted in view of settled proposition of law. Hence, in view of my aforesaid observations and findings, the present application U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC stands dismissed.
It is however clarified that nothing observed herein shall tentamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Announced in the open court ( A.K. Agrawal)
today on 20.09.2014 Civil Judge 01 ( West)/Delhi
C.S No. 255/14 8/8