Lrs Of Bajrang Das And Ors vs Lrs Of Mukna Ram, Jodhpur And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during pendency of the appeal, the respondents be restrained from causing any hindrance in

the enjoyment of disputed property by public at large for worshiping at the temple made therein.

Further the respondents be restrained from organizing communal function in the disputed property.

Learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the prayers made, made submissions that, insofar as, the temple in question is concerned, the same

is admittedly managed by the appellants and nobody is being prevented for visiting the temple.

The hostel in the name of Vishavkarma Chhatrawas, Masuriya is being managed by the respondents.

Further submissions have been made that the respondents for over a long period of time have only using the property as a starting point for their

procession only once in a year and in this regard has placed on record certain orders issued by the office of Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, the

oldest being of year 2013.

It is submitted that except for doing the said activity, which is being done by the respondents for over a period of time and using the property for the

hostel, the respondents even otherwise are not putting the property to any other use and, therefore, the prayer made in this regard deserves to be

rejected.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Insofar as, the prayer made by the appellants pertaining to the worshiping in the temple and enjoyment of the property by public at large is concerned,

the respondents as noticed hereinbefore have submitted that the temple is being managed by the appellants and there is no restriction on public at large

from visiting the said temple and, therefore, to that extent, the prayer made by the appellants stands granted.

So far as the prayer made pertaining to restraining the respondents from organizing their 'communal function' is concerned, without going into the

nomenclature given by the appellants to the function being held by the respondents, as the respondents have placed on record certain orders passed by

the office of Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, indicating the use of the property as a starting point of procession for over a period of time, as the

oldest order produced is of the year 2013, the prayer made regarding restraining the respondents for putting the property to said use is declined.

In view of the above, the stay application filed by the appellants is disposed of with the directions to the respondents not to interference and/or cause

any hindrance, insofar as, the worshiping at the temple and visit of public at large to the temple is concerned. Further they shall not create any third

party interest in the property in question during pendency of the appeal.