IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3231 of 2008 1. Sri Sri 108 Bhagwati Mahrani through Sewait, Devendra Narian Mishra s/o Adhik Lal Mishra 2. Devendra Narayan Mishra s/o late Adhik Lal Mishra 3. Nagendra Mishra s/o late Upendra Narayan Mishra 4. Baidyanath Mishra s/o Anup Lal Mishra 5. Shaligram Mishra s/o late Jagarnath Mishra All resident of village Phulwaria P.S. Korha Dist. Katihar Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Superintendent of Police, Katihar, Mr Gandeshwar Prasad Singh Opposite Party Ist set 2. Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board having its office at Vidyapati Marg, PS Kotwali Dist. Patna through its Adhyakash Sri Kishore Kunal Opposite Party 2nd set 3. Sri Niranjan Kumar Ranjan s/o Sri Rati Mohan Rai 4. Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha s/o Sri Shiv Narayn Prasad 5. Sri Kashi Mukhiya s/o late Bhuwan Mukhiya 6. Sri Kumud Jha s/o late Anant Jha 7. Sri Shiva Nath Jha s/o late Jagnnath Jha 8. Sri Raj Kumar Rai s/o Sri Umesh Rai 9. Sri Rajesh Sinha s/o Sri Vinay Kumar Singh 10. Sri Om Prakash Paswan s/o late Bahuran Paswan 11. Sri Brij Kishore Chouhdary s/o late Inder Lal Choudhary 12. Sri Srinath Jha s/o Sri Gopi Nath Jha 13. Sri Vidyanath Ravidas s/o late Mohan Ravidas 14. Sri Laliteshswar Jha s/o Sri Kameshwar Jha 15. Sri Pradeep Paswan s/o Sri Ramdeo Paswan 16. Sri Krishna Kumar Sah s/o late Satya Narayan Sah 17. Sri Madan Mohan Jha s/o late Chandra Kishore Jha 18.Smt Mani Prabha Devi w/o Sri Jaya Kant Jha 19.Sri Vaiddyanth Mukhiya s/o late Lachuman Mukhiya 20.Sri Kumod Rai s/o late Kameshwar Rai 21.Sri Manoj Mukhiya s/o late Pameshwar Mukhiya 22.Damodar Rai s/o late Satya Narayan Rai All resident of village Phulwaria PO Marwa PS Korha Dist. Katihar Opposite Party 3rd set ---------- For the petitioners: Mr Gyanand Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K.Jha, Advocate For the Religious Board: Mr Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Advocate For respondent III set : Mr Madhav Roy, Advocate Mr Arun Kumar Ambastha, Advocate -------- 07/ 28.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel - 2 - for the State of Bihar, learned counsel for Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board and learned counsel for opposite parties 3rd set . 2. This petition has been filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against opposite party 3rd set under the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 2 A of the Code of Civil Procedure due to their willful and deliberate disobedience of order of injunction passed by this court on 10.10.2007 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.386 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal No.386 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners who were plaintiffs in Title Suit No.90 of 2005 challenging order dated 07.09.2006 by which Subordinate Judge I, Katihar refused to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ management of the suit properties and religious functions of the deities. 4. The above mentioned Title Suit No. 90 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for declaring that Sri Sri 108 Maharani Durgajee was a family deity of the plaintiffs and no trust of the public nature for religious or charitable purpose had been created by the Donor and for injunction as well as other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants whereafter the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application for injunction which was not allowed by the trial court and only an order of status quo was passed against which the plaintiffs-petitioners filed the above mentioned miscellaneous appeal. 5. This court had considered Miscellaneous Appeal No.386 of 2006 in detail and after hearing all the parties thereto vide order dated 10.10.2007 allowed the said miscellaneous appeal and set aside the impugned order of the trial court with following observations:- - 3 - “Defendants are restrained from making any interference with Puja Path and other related activities being performed by the plaintiffs with respect to the deity in question and also from making any interference with the management of the suit lands by the plaintiffs during the pendency of the title suit.” 6. Now the instant contempt petition has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners claiming that although title suit is still pending but the defendants–opposite parties 3rd set have violated the said order of this court by constructing a temporary Mandir over the suit land and also by interfering with the plaintiffs’ cultivation on the suit land. In this connection the petitioners have also annexed photograph of temporary Mandir under Pandal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties 3rd set opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and states that after the aforesaid order of this court they had neither interfered with the cultivation on the suit land by the plaintiffs-petitioners nor they have intention to do so during the pendency of the suit nor they have constructed any such temporary Mandir under Pandal and the entire allegation is absolutely baseless not supported by any material whatsoever. 8. It transpires that in Title Suit no. 90 of 2005 also the plaintiffs-petitioners had filed an application dated 15.02.2008 making similar allegation which was replied by the defendants 3rd set on 13.03.2008 denying any violation of court’s order. However by order dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure 5) the Subordinate Judge I, Katihar disposed of the said application with a direction to the Officer Incharge, Korha police station to see that Puja Path and management in the suit land by the - 4 - plaintiffs-petitioners should not be allowed to be interfered with by any one as per the order of the High Court. The trial court also fixed 29.07.2008 for framing of issues. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that there is nothing to show that the defendants had made any temporary Mandir under Pandal or had been interfering with the cultivation of plaintiffs-petitioners over the suit land and it might have been done by any one else. In the said circumstances, specifically in view of the specific order passed by the trial court the Officer Incharge, Korha police station is directed to see that the possession of plaintiffs-petitioners over the suit land and Puja Path in the Mandir in question is not interfered by anyone and the temporary Mandir constructed on a portion of the suit land will also be managed and looked after by the plaintiffs-petitioners. 10. It is stated that issues in the suit have already been framed and evidence of the plaintiffs has started. In the said circumstances and also in view of the seriousness of the matter involving religious sentiment, the trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit as already directed vide order dated 10.10.2007 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.386 of 2006 without any undue adjournment to any one so that the suit is decided expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of. shahid (S. N. Hussain, J)