Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
CS SCJ 1086/23
VED PRAKASH S/O SHAM LAL Vs. MAHARISHI BALMIKI
MANDIR SUDHAR SAMITI
21.07.2026
Argued by: Ms. Manasi Bhushan, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff through VC.
Plaintiff in person.
Ld. Proxy Counsel for defendant.
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the application u/O 39 Rule 1 &
2 CPC.
2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are regular
devotees of “Baba Khakshah Brahmchari Ji Ki Samadhi” situated at
Rana Pratap Bagh near G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi and the said
Samadhi/temple premises is managed by a registered society i.e.
Defendant no. 1 namely Maharishi Balmiki Mandir Sudhar Samiti . It is
stated that the defendant no.1 is working mainly for welfare/betterment
and to manage the operations of “Maharishi Balmiki Mandir” and
“Baba KhakShah Brahmchari Ji Ki Samadhi”, however, it has been
alleged by the plaintiff that elections are not being conducted at the said
society to elect an executive committee as per law and it is also alleged
that the donation money which is offered by the devotees at the said
Temple/Samadhi is being utilized by the defendants for their personal
use and not for the management of the Samiti, hence, the present suit has
been filed seeking decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the
defendants to conduct elections as per memorandum of society and also
to direct them to open a current bank account in the name of Baba
-- 1 of 4 --
2
KhakShah Brahmchari Ji Ki Samadhi and transfer all the funds in the
said bank account. It is also prayed that defendants be restrained from
creating any third party interest in the said Samadhi/Temple.
3. By way of the present application the plaintiff has prayed that
defendants be restrained from misusing the funds collected by them from
the devotees and the same be directed to be deposited in the current bank
account in name of Samiti. Also, it is prayed that a current bank account
be directed to be opened in the name of Baba KhakShah Brahmchari Ji
Ki Samadhi and all the funds be transferred in the said account. Further
it is prayed that the defendants be restrained from creating any third
party interest in the said Samadhi/temple.
4. Per contra the defendants have opposed this application and it is
stated that a separate bank account has already been opened in the name
of defendant no. 1 which also has a separate PAN number. It is stated
that the defendants have been regularly maintaining a proper account of
each and every penny donated at defendant no. 1. However, during the
course of arguments it has been argued on behalf of defendants that the
defendants any how cannot create any third party interest in the said
Temple/Samadhi.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is a well settled law that for proving himself to be entitled to a
temporary injunction, the plaintiff has to prove three things:-
(i) That a prima facie case is made out in his favour.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
(ii) That the balance of convenience lies in his favour.
(iii) That the refusal of injunction will cause irreparable
injury to him.
7. As has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
prima facie case means that there is a
serious disputed question to be tried in the suit, and on facts before the
Court, there is probability of applicant to be entitled to the relief asked
for.
8. Prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt. It is no
part of the Court's function at this stage, to sift and weigh, the
evidentiary material filed alongwith pleadings to assess their probative
value. The only requirement is that whether the view taken as per the
plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff is a possible view or not.
[M.
Gurudas V/s Rasranjan (2006) 8 SCC 367].
9. As far as the point of irreparable injury is concerned, it is a settled
law that no injury is irreparable which can be adequately compensated
by way of damages and when there are other efficacious remedies
available to the applicant.
[Kuldip Singh V/s Subhash Chandra Jain
(AIR 2000 SC 1410), Maharawal Khewaji Trust V/s Baldev Dass (2004)
8 SCC 488].
10. Balance of convenience connotes comparative hardship or
mischief likely to be caused to either party in case of grant or refusal of
the injunction.
[Dalpat Kumar V/s Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276)].
-- 3 of 4 --
4
11. Apart from the above stated legal position, it is noteworthy that
the interim relief sought by the plaintiff is the same as one of the final
reliefs and the law is well established that in order to obtain the final
relief at an interim stage, the plaintiff has to show a very strong prima
facie case in his favour (Deoraj vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC
1975).
12. Considering the averment that a separate bank account has been
opened in the name of defendant no. 1 which is a registered society and
the averment that all the donations and offerings are being accounted by
the defendants, this court finds no ground for interference at this stage.
13. Accordingly, the application U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is disposed
off.
14. Nothing mentioned above would tantamount to expression of any
opinion on the merits of the suit.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge/N-W District
21.07.2026
-- 4 of 4 --