IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 95 of 2008 1. Smt. Sarla Sharma W/o Sri Gopal Krishan Sharma R/o Laxmi Bhagti Ashram 6, Dehradun Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. 2. Laxmi Bhakti Ashram Jeewani Mai Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun Now known as Laxmi Bhakti Ashram Trust, A society registered under Societies Registration Act vide No. 308 / 2002 – 2003, through Chief Manager Smt. Sarla Sharma. ...………… Plaintiffs / Appellants Versus Manish Kumar S/o Lala Visheshwar Prasad R/o 117 / 11, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur. ...…………. Defendant / Respondent Mr. Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Tarun Takuli, Advocate for the plaintiffs / appellants. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for defendant / respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tarun Takuli, Advocate present for the plaintiff / appellants. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate present for defendant / respondent. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.05.2008, passed by the trial court [Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun] in Suit No. 516 of 2002, and judgment and decree dated 25.09.2008, passed by the first appellate court (District Judge, Dehradun) in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2008, whereby the decree passed by the trial court, is affirmed. 3) Plaintiffs / appellants instituted the suit for injunction against the defendant / respondent that he be restrained from interfering in the functioning of plaintiff as Chief Manager of Laxmi Bhakti Ashram. In the counter claim, the defendant also sought similar relief against the plaintiffs. The trial court framed as many as nine issues, and after recording the evidence, found that the plaintiff failed to prove her case, while the defendant succeeded in proving the counter claim, and accordingly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and passed the decree in the counter claim. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred two appeals before the lower appellate court, one against the dismissal of the suit and one against the decree passed in the counter claim. The first appellate court also, after hearing the parties, concurred with the findings recorded by the trail court, and dismissed both the appeals. Hence, this second appeal. 4) I have gone through both the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court and found that there is concurrent finding of fact against the plaintiff / appellants that the defendant / respondent is the Chief Manager of the Ashram, and not the plaintiff. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. Otherwise also, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 6) Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed, summarily. (Stay Application No. 8111 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.: December 03, 2008 H.Negi