CR No.7107 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7107 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: April 27, 2011. Mahant Bharigu Dass. .. Petitioner VERSUS Mahant Sewa Dass. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.D.S.Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. Vide impugned order dated 24.03.2009, passed by the trial Court and vide order dated 09.09.2010, passed by the lower appellate Court, the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, has been allowed, restraining the defendant-petitioner from claiming Mohatmimship of Dera Nirwansar, . . . 1 CR No.7107 of 2010 (O&M) Moom, and from interfering in the management and property of the said Dera till the final decision of the suit. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that after death of Mahant Sukhdev Singh, Mohatmim of Dera Nirwansar, Moom, he has been looking after the management of the moveable and immovable property of the Dera mentioned in the heading of the plaint which is in possession of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Parkashit Dera Nirwansar, Moom. It is undisputed that the above said Dera was being managed by Sant Angre Sahib, a disciple of Sant Ishar Dass. After the death of said Mahant on 20.07.1986, it was being managed by Mahant Sukhdev Dass. The plaintiff-respondent claims that the defendant-petitioner was a disciple of Sant Angre Sahib, but later on he left the Udasi Bhekh and adopted the family life and broke all connections with Udasi Bhekh after writing dated 23.03.1986. It is alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant did not have any relation with Sant Angre Sahib after 23.03.1986. After the death of Sant Angre Sahib, the defendant made an attempt to interfere in the management of the Dera and take the possession of the property of the Dera. Therefore, Mahant Sukhdev Dass had filed a suit for permanent injunction and the defendant-petitioner was restrained vide order dated 23.08.1991 from interfering in the Dera. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 18th April, 1996, by the Additional District Judge, Barnala. The dispute between the plaintiff and defendant is whether after the . . . 2 CR No.7107 of 2010 (O&M) death of Mahant Sukhdev Dass on 24.08.2007, the plaintiff- respondent was appointed as Mahant after formal ceremonies on 09.09.2007 or it was defendant-petitioner who was made the Head Priest of Dera. The Courts below have observed that it will be decided on the basis of the evidence that who had been bestowed the Mohatmimship of Udasi Bhekh in congregation on 09.09.2007. The validity of the writing by the defendant-petitioner dated 23.03.1996, renouncing the saintly life and he being the Chela of Sant Agrey Sahib to bestow the Mohtamimship after the death of Sukhdev Singh has to be determined during the course of trial but in view of the judgment of civil Court dated 23.08.1991 in case Sukhdev Singh Vs.Bhrigu Dass, confirmed in appeal on 18.04.1986, prima facie, the defendant-petitioner had renounced Chelaship of Sant Angre Dass. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court indicates that the defendant-petitioner has been restrained to claim Mohatmimship of Dera and he has been restrained to interfere in the management of the Dera and its surrounding properties during the pendency of the case. So far as serving the Dera is concerned, there does not seem to be any prohibition if it is done peacefully. The Courts below have taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff- respondent has got prima facie a better case than the defendant- petitioner on the basis of the documents produced. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Courts below have not considered the fact that the property of Dera is not owned by the plaintiff-respondent. Mahant Sukhdev Singh . . . 3 CR No.7107 of 2010 (O&M) himself had vide a writing dated 15.06.2007, admitted that he had played fraud with the defendant and prepared fake documents which were produced in the Court as such, he had sought pardon for his misconduct which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1 and I am of the opinion that, at this stage, the validity of said document cannot be determined. No ground is made out for interference in the interim order passed by the Courts below. No opinion has been expressed on merits in this case whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent falls under the provisions of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code as neither any plea has been raised by the defendant-petitioner nor any objection in that respect has been raised. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 27, 2011. rka . . . 4