IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8742 of 2011 The Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board Versus Bablu Pandey & Ors ----------- 12. 22.11.2011 I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr. S.S. Duivedi on behalf of the respondents. (2) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board against the order dated 22.07.2008 passed by Munsif I, Gaya in Title Suit No.42 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below directed the petitioner to restore the position existing earlier. (3) The short fact for the purpose of this writ application may be stated that the original plaintiff, Lallan Pandey filed the aforesaid title suit praying for restraining the defendants from taking charge of Schedule-A property belonging to plaintiff no.2, the deity. The plaintiff claimed the aforesaid relief on allegation that the trust is private trust and, therefore, the defendants have no authority to interfere with in the management of the temple known as Mahavir Asthan. (4) On 09.01.2007, the original plaintiff filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Show cause notice was issued on the defendant-petitioner. Thereafter on 17.01.2007, the original plaintiff no.1 who was pujari 2 died. Thereafter in his place, the respondent no.1 was substituted. (5) The petitioner’s case is that the property is public trust property. The petitioner had already removed original plaintiff from pujariship and Hriday Pandey has been appointed as pujari. (6) On 03.01.2008, an application was filed by the respondents praying therein to restore the post of pujari in the temple. After hearing the parties, the impugned order was passed directing the defendant to restore the pujariship to the respondent. (7) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pujariship is not hereditary and that the respondent who was substituted in place of Lallan Pandey was never the pujari and, therefore, the learned Court below could not have directed to restore pujariship in his favour. The learned counsel further submitted that mandatory injunction should not be granted lightly. The Court below should have granted the said relief only after decision of the suit and not prior to that particularly when the injunction application was pending for final decision. (8) On the other hand, the learned senior counsel, Mr. Duivedi submitted that during the pendency of the injunction application, the petitioners dispossessed the pujari and in the show cause, it has been admitted but only the defence is that there was no order of injunction. 3 (9) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that all the points which are being argued before this Court are argued before the trial court by the petitioner. The Court below has taken cognizance of those facts. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into details here now. As stated above it is admitted that during the pendency of the injunction application the pujari was removed by the petitioner. Whether the properties belonging to plaintiff no.2 is public trust or private trust is a matter to be decided in the suit. Admittedly during pendency of the injunction application, the pujari was removed. The petitioner never denied this fact rather it was admitted. (10) In 2006(3) P.L.J.R. 454(Savitri Devi vs. Rajo Devi), this Court has held that if it is found that construction was made after filing of injunction application, then the Court is obliged to restore status quo as on the date of injunction notwithstanding that there was no status quo order by the Court because if that is not done then the judicial process would be made infructuous. As stated above, during the pendency of the injunction application, the pujari has been removed by the petitioner on the ground that there was no injunction order. (11) In (2008) 4 SCC 791(Tanushree Basu vs. Ishani Prasad Basu), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if a party takes recourse to any contrivance to dispossess another, during the pendency of the suit either 4 in violation of the order of injunction or otherwise, the Court undisputedly will have jurisdiction to restore the parties back to the same position. If a person is entitled to prohibitory injunction, he shall also be entitled to mandatory injunction. Here, the dispossession has been admitted and that too during the pendency of the injunction application. (12) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it is not a case of jurisdictional error, therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)