IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1303 of 2007 OM PRAKASH GUPTA Versus SURESH PRASAD & ORS ----------- 03/ 08.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. I.A. No. 5429 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent-petitioner for stay of operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2007, by which the learned District Judge-Fast Track Court, Saran allowed Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2007 filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-opposite parties and directed the defendant-respondent-petitioner to hand over the key of the Mandir in question to the Pujari and allow Puja for the public at large. 3. The instant matter arises out of Title Suit No. 489 of 2003, which was filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties for declaration that the temple and Thakurbari in question was of the public at large, who were worshipping the deity from time immemorial and for restraining the defendant-petitioner from committing mischief by obstructing the devotees from worshipping in the said common temple. 4. On the other hand, the defendant-petitioner asserted that the said Mandir and Thakurbari was not a public Mandir and Thakurbari, rather it was a private Mandir and Thakurbari of his family and the plaintiffs or general public of the area had no concern or right with respect to the said Mandir and Thakurbari, nor earlier also they had even exercised any such right. 2 5. It transpires that the plaintiffs filed an application in the said title suit on 30.01.2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for directing the defendant to maintain status quo and to open the lock of the Mandir and Thakurbari and hand over the key thereof to Ramjee Mishra, Pujari of the Mandir. 6. The said interlocutory application was contested by the defendants and was disposed of by the learned 5th Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Saran at Chapra vide his order dated 22.01.2007 directing the defendants to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. Furthermore, both the parties were directed to come ready for hearing of the case on the next date as the suit required quick disposal as early as possible. 7. Against the aforesaid order of the learned trial court, the plaintiffs filed M.A. No. 10 of 2007, which was contested by the defendants and finally the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court-II, Saran at Chapra allowed the said miscellaneous appeal and modified the order of the trial court by a reasoned order dated 21.05.2007 directing the defendants to open the lock of the Mandir and Thakurbari and hand over the key to the Pujari Ramjee Mishra to perform Puja and offering in the Mandir by public at large in view of the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 28.11.2003. 8. Against the said order, the defendant-petitioner has filed the instant civil revision. In case of Surya Deo Rai vrs. Ram Chandra Rai & Ors., reported in 2003(6) S.C.C. 675, the Hon’ble 3 Apex Court has specifically held that after amendment of 1999 no revision against any order passed in miscellaneous appeal affirming, reversing or modifying the order with regard to injunction passed by the trial court, shall lie. The impugned order is in teeth of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and hence the instant civil revision is not maintainable. 9. Since this civil revision itself is not maintainable, I.A. No., 4529 of 2009 filed therein cannot legally be allowed . Accordingly, the aforesaid interlocutory application is rejected. However, since the matter in issue concerns a religious institution, the learned court below is directed to abide by its own order dated 22.01.2007 as well as the order of the lower appellate court dated 21.05.2009 with respect to the expeditious disposal of the suit positively within six months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )