1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2010 Baliram S/o Baburao Pandav & Oths. .... APPELLANTS V E R S U S Maroti S/o Bhaguji Kamble & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.R.Naik, Advocate for resp. no. 1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 05/10/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. 2. The respondent/original plaintiff had filed Suit for injunction restraining the respondents from obstructing the plaintiff from offering the prayers as Pujari and for collecting the offerings. The Trial Court partly decreed the Suit to the extent of restraining the defendants from interfering in the right of plaintiff to offer prayer in the temple. The appellate Court dismissed the said Appeal confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. The defendant has assailed said Judgment before this Court. 3. Mr. Dhage, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 2 Judgment suffers from material defects. The Suit itself was not tenable in absence of permission under Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and secondly the Court has granted the relief which is not prayed for. Mr. Dhage further submitted that the relief which was prayed was that he should be allowed to offer prayers as Pujari and the Court has passed order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the right of plaintiffs of offering prayer in the temple. The Order does not say that he is allowed to offer prayer as Pujari. 4. Per contra, Mr.V.R.Naik, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that permission under section 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act is not necessary for institution of the Suit of the present nature. For the said purpose, has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vinayak Dev Idagunji & Oths. V/s Shivaram & Oths. reported in 2005 SAR ( Civil ) - 673. He has further submitted that if the finding in the Judgment are taken into consideration, the Court has allowed the plaintiff to worship as Pujari relying on the Judgment passed in the Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 139 of 1772. The Court has rejected the prayer of receiving offerings and the present respondent has not assailed the same. So, part of the relief has been granted. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties, I have gone through the judgments of both the Court below. The petition regarding permission under section 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act from the authority i.e. Charity Commissioner would not be necessary in the Suit of the present nature as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Vinayak Dev referred supra. So far as other contention is concerned, the Trial Court in paragraph no. 11 has discussed about the rights and has decreed the Suit in part only. More over, the Courts have ample power under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure even to mold the relief. Be that as it may. The relief granted is with regard to the offering of prayer in the temple which is referable to the prayer made. The other relief has been rejected which has also been affirmed by the Appellate Court and so only the part of the relief has been granted. 3 6. In light of the above, no substantial question of law arises. As such, the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 216.10