R.S.A No. 1494 of 2006 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1494 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : October 15, 2009 Chiranji and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Ramesh Chand and others. ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 under Section 92 of the CPC, as well as the directions with regard to the management of the property and accounts of the temple known as `Mahadevji Modawala'. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the suit in question is maintainable under Section 92 CPC, especially when there is neither any trust or trust deed ? ii) Whether the judgments and decree passed by the R.S.A No. 1494 of 2006 (O&M) ::2:: Courts below are without jurisdiction as such a suit where vested interests are involved and not a public interest, then can a suit under Section 92 CPC be held to be sustained ? iii) Whether the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are perverse ? iv) Whether the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted documentary as well as the oral evidence available on record ? v) Whether in a suit under Section 92 PC if for the framing of the scheme to run the Trust is filed and the trustees enter into a compromise and place the same in record, whether the Court was bound to accept the same and to accept the scheme framed by the Trustees ? vi) Whether the learned lower appellate Court is justified in modifying the scheme framed by the learned trial Court, especially when appeal filed by the appellants and the cross-objections filed by the contesting respondents have been dismissed ?” It would be seen that questions No.(i) to (iv) and (vi) are pure questions of fact. It is an issue of fact whether Section 92 of the CPC is applicable to any property. Both the Courts have found that the property of the Temple was trust property and not the private property of the appellants. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. No arguments R.S.A No. 1494 of 2006 (O&M) ::3:: have been addressed on question No. (v). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 15, 2009. JUDGE `kk'