2026:HHC:24355 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 80 of 2026 Date of decision : 22.06.2026. Bhim Raj & others ...Petitioners. Versus Mata Sakaraini Mandir Sanchalan Samiti & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun Garla, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition arises out of order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., whereby, application filed by the petitioners/defendants under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint came to be rejected. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction before the learned Civil Judge Court No.1 Sarkaghat, District Mandi. As per averments as made in the plaint, it has been stated that since 2010, Samiti was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- formed by the plaintiffs for performing religious functions like Bhagwat Katha once in a year to celebrate Chetra Navratra, Jagran and other religious functions of the temple. 3. As per plaintiffs, the defendants on 22.03.2023 forcibly entered into the Garbh Grih saying that the entire earning of the temple including Chadawa, various gifts (money, gold and silver ornaments, Chunari, Nariyal etc and other gift belongs to them which in fact belongs to the temple Samiti. Therefore, under such circumstances, suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents for seeking decree of permanent prohibitory & mandatory injunction against the petitioners/defendants, restraining the defendants from forcibly occupying the Garbh Grih, disturb the functioning of the Samiti and forcibly taking the earnings of the temple. Further a decree for mandatory injunction by restoring the temple and premises of Mata Sakraini Devi Sanchalan Samiti was also sought from the learned trial Court. 4. The defendants/petitioners after their service filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint. It was averred in the application that the present suit as instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents is barred by the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act and by the provisions of The Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious -3- Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act, the State of H.P. has not been arrayed as party defendant in the suit, therefore, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. The said application was duly resisted by the plaintiffs/respondents by refuting all the averments as made in the application. 6. The learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi vide its impugned order dated 10.03.2025 has dismissed the application. 7. After the dismissal of the application, filed by the petitioners, they preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi. However, the same came to be dismissed on 05.12.2025 by the said Court. 8. Feeling dissatisfied against the impugned orders, the petitioners/defendants have approached this Court by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the impugned orders as passed by the learned courts are erroneous and are liable to be quashed and set aside. He would submit that on the face of record, the -4- suit as instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents is liable to be rejected as their case falls under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC. He would further submit that after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint deserves to be allowed. 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has defended the impugned order. He submits that the learned courts below have rightly decided the point in controversy and as the plaintiffs/ respondents have failed to make out a case under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, therefore, the application has rightly been dismissed and the said findings have rightly been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily rests his case on two counts. Firstly, he would submit that by virtue of the provisions of The Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, the present suit as filed by the plaintiffs/respondents is not maintainable. His contention cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, which reads as follows:- “3. Appointment of Commissioner and other officers.- (1) The Government shall appoint one or more Commissioners for the whole or different parts of the State -5- of Himachal Pradesh to exercise the powers and functions conferred upon, or entrusted to, him by or under this Act. [(1-A) The Principal Secretary or Secretary (Language, Arts and Culture) to the State Government shall be the Chief Commissioner (Temple).] (2) The Government may, from time to time, appoint such other officers and staff to assist the Commissioner as it may deem fit. (3) The conditions of service of officers appointed under sub-section (2) shall be such as may be determined by the Government 2 [and Recruitment and Promotion Rules and other conditions of service of the temple trusts employees shall be such as may be notified by the Chief Commissioner (Temple).] 13. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that admittedly, the temple in the present case is not mentioned in the list of those temples, as described in Schedule-I of the Act. Therefore, the submission as made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the suit is not maintainable is rejected. The second contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that by virtue of provisions 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, the suit as instituted by the plaintiffs is not maintainable that too in absence of State of H.P. as party. He submits that since the State of H.P. has not been arrayed as party defendant, therefore, on account of non-joinder of necessary parties, the -6- suit is not maintainable. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read as follows:- “11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; 1 (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9: [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]” 14. Perusal of the said provisions clearly reveals that there is no stipulation in the Act for the rejection of the plaint on account of the non-joinder of any party. Consequently, the -7- impugned orders as passed by the learned courts below do not suffer from any infirmity. As has rightly been held by the learned Courts that the present suit has been filed for permanent prohibitory injunction and in view of the averments as made in the plaint, they raise disputed question of facts and the facts can be decided and adjudicated after adducing the evidence by the respective parties. Therefore, the petitioners/defendants have failed to carve out a case for rejection of plaint on the basis of pleadings in the plaint. 15. Consequently, this Court sees no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 16. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observations made here- in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. (Romesh Verma) Judge 22nd June, 2026. (kck)