Bansidhar Sharma (Since Deceased) ... vs The State Of Rajasthan

3. The seminal facts relevant for the purpose are that late Shri Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Bansidhar Sharma(predecessor of the appellant) filed a suit on 15 th Date: 2019.11.05 14:20:40 IST Reason:

4. After the matter being heard, trial Court vide its judgment dated 26th November, 1977 holding that there was no substance in the suit dismissed it with costs. The judgment of the trial Court 2 dated 26th November, 1977 came to be assailed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 86/1979. During pendency of the appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan passed an ad­interim order on 11 th January, 1978:­ “Issue notice to the G.A. and the respondents. Meanwhile the appellant shall not be dispossessed from the premises where he resides. The rest of the relief claimed by the appellant will be considered after the notices are served.”

6. In sequel thereof, further interim order came to be passed on 22nd November, 1996. The operative part of the Order dated 22 nd November, 1996 is referred hereunder:­ “Consequently the second stay application is allowed. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the rights of the applicants to perform sewa Pooja of the idols in the said temple and also not to dispossess the applicants from the premises of the temple in which they are residing. Respondents are further directed to restore the possession of the temple of Lord Laxminarainji, i.e., the temple in question to the applicants/appellants forthwith or in any case not later than 3rd of December, 1996 and the compliance report be submitted by the respondents in this regard immediately since the possession of the aforesaid temple was taken by the respondents in 1988 from late Bansidhar forcibly and without due process of law and without obtaining any decree of possession or an order of eviction against late Bansidhar or the present applicant/appellants from a competent court. The interim order, dated 10.10.1996 passed by this Court clarifying the earlier order dated 11.1.1978 passed by learned Division bench of this Court is confirmed pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Let the appeal be listed for hearing and final disposal on 17.12.1996.” 4

Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rupees One Lakh and the plaintiff is directed to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the defendants­ respondents within a period of two months from today, failing which, the defendants­respondents will be entitled to get the possession through the Court. Further, the defendant­respondents are also entitled to get the cost of litigation from the plaintiff­appellant.” 5

18. Indisputedly, in the instant case, there was no decree or order of the trial Court by virtue of which the appellant was given possession of the subject property. On the contrary, the suit filed at the instance of the appellant­plaintiff came to be dismissed with costs and that came to be confirmed on dismissal of the first appeal by the Single Judge of the High Court and special leave petition filed before this Court also came to be dismissed. The possession was handed over to the appellant of the subject property under the interim order passed by the High Court pending first appeal of which a reference has been made and after the appeal came to be dismissed, its logical consequence was noticed by the High Court in its judgment dated 20th April, 2018 directing the appellant to hand over possession of the subject property to the respondents­ defendants obviously for the reason that on dismissal of the first appeal preferred by the appellant, he was under an obligation to 12 restore back peaceful possession to the respondents on vacation of the interim orders .

19. In the present facts and circumstances, the respondents have not committed any error in taking decision to call upon the appellant for handing over possession of the subject property at least after the special leave petition filed at the instance of the appellant came to be dismissed under order dated 17 th May, 2018 and in sequel thereto, there was no other remedy left with the respondents than to file an application under Section 151 CPC before the High Court for restoration of possession of the subject property.

22. Before parting with the order, taking note of the fact that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the appellant­plaintiff way back in the year 1961 and almost 59 years have rolled by now, to give a quietus to the litigation and also the fact that the appellant had failed at all the stages, having no authority to hold possession of the subject property, we, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the appellant to hand over peaceful possession of the subject property to the respondents­defendants in compliance of the judgment of the High Court dated 20th April, 2018 followed with order dated 21st August, 2019 positively within a period of eight weeks from today failing which this Court will take serious note of the matter and proceedings may be instituted against the appellant­ plaintiff for deliberate defiance of the order of this Court. 15

23. The appeal is without substance and accordingly dismissed with the observations as indicated above. No costs.

24. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.