RSA-1560-1998 (O&M) 207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1560-1998 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.02.2025 Murti Shri Thakur Ji Maharaj (since deceased) Through his LRs ...... Appellant Versus Budh Dass ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal. For convenience parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellant as plaintiff and the respondent as defendant. 2 Present appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 17.12.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby judgment and decree passed by Trial Court dated 24.08.1995 has been reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking relief of mandatory injunction stands declined. 3 Plaintiff filed a suit claiming that the defendant Bhagta Dass Chela of Gian Dass is a Manager of the plaintiff idol. He was employed as POOJA SHARMA 2025.02.25 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1560-1998 (O&M) Pujari to look after the suit property. His work having not been found to be satisfactory, his services stand terminated after serving notice dated 04.01.1993. Despite termination of service, defendant has refused to vacate the suit premises. 4 Suit was contested by the defendant, claiming himself to be Mahant. It was claimed that the defendant is not Mohtmim (Manager) or pujari. He was appointed as Mahant of the plaintiff-idol, 35 years ago and the plaintiff has no right to terminate the services of the defendant. 5 On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed :- “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit? OpD 3) Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD. 4) Relief.” 6 While returning the finding on issue No.1, Trial Court relied upon judgments Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5, wherein it is Bhagta Nand who has been held to be Mahant of Thakur Dwara. Thus, Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7 Dissatisfied, defendant approached Lower Appellate Court. Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court, holding that as per the evidence it stands proved that it is defendant who is looking after dera and mandir for last 40 years. He was appointed by Banwari Dass who was Manager at the relevant time. Learned Appellate POOJA SHARMA 2025.02.25 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1560-1998 (O&M) Court further held that there is no evidence led by Bhagta Nand that work of Budh Dass is not satisfactory or that he is not looking after dera well. 8 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the present appeal defendant has died and one Gurpiar Dass claiming under the defendant has filed a separate suit. 9 In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that once a person claiming under the defendant has filed a separate suit to establish his right, nothing survives in the present lis for adjudication at the hands of this Court. 10 Disposed off accordingly. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 18.02.2025 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2025.02.25 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document