Final Order 2

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
CNR : MHCC010038682018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1209 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2634 OF 2003
1 Smt. Sushila Mathuradas Thakkar & Ors. .. Plaintiffs
V/s.
1 Shri Suresh G. Boble & Ors. .. Defendants
Appearances:
Ms. V. M. Thakkar, Adv. for plaintiffs.
Mr. Suresh Gole, Adv. for defendants.
CORAM : A.I. PERAMPALLI,
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.13)
DATE : 23rd March, 2018.
ORDER
1 This is Notice of Motion of the plaintiffs by which the
plaintiffs urge that the defendant Nos.1 to 19 and 23, their servants,
agents or any other person or association of persons, claiming through
them be restrained by an order and injunction from removing or
changing or replacing or restoring any deities in the suit premises
namely Rameshwar Temple.
2 Perused the affidavit of Ms. Vandana Mathuradas Thakkar
plaintiff No.3, documents filed along it, further affidavit in support of
Notice of Motion, affidavit of Mr. Suresh Boble defendant No.1 and
photographs filed alongwith it.
3 Adv. Ms. Thakkar submitted written argument. Adv. Mr.
Gole submitted oral argument and written argument.
-- 1 of 5 --
2
4 Upon hearing both the sides, following points arise for my
consideration and I have recorded my findings thereon for the reasons
stated below.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Have the plaintiffs made out prima facie case? In the negative
2 In whose favour, balance of convenience lies? Defendants
3 To whom, irreparable loss would be caused, if
injunction is refused? Does not survive
4 What order? Notice of Motion is
disposed off as frustrated.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO.1.
5 It is undisputed fact that this Court in Notice of Motion
No.1433 of 2003 allowed the defendant Nos.1 to 18 to continue in the
management of the temple i.e. Rameshwar Temple. This Court accepted
the fact that ownership of the temple property is of the plaintiffs. The
defendants are not claiming ownership over the suit premises. The
defendants are only claiming management of the temple.
6 In the backdrop of above admitted facts, I proceed to deal
with this Notice of Motion. There are three idols in the Rameshwar
Temple i.e. God Ram, God Laxman and Goddess Sita. There is another
idol of goddess Gaodevi. The defendants want to remove old idol of
Goddess Gaodevi and install a new idol of Goddess Gaodevi due to wear
and tear of old idol. From the affidavit of both the sides, it appears that
portion of idol of Lord Laxman has been broken. Photograph also
demonstrates this fact. It also appears that the defendant No.1 to 18
have already removed the idol of Lord Laxman. Only Pran Pratisthapana
(izk.k izfr”Bkiuk ) of it remains to be performed. Under such circumstances,
-- 2 of 5 --
3
it is desirable to allow the defendants to perform Pran Pratisthapana
(izk.k izfr”Bkiuk ) of new idol of Lord Laxman. It is because in the
Rameshwar Temple, four idols are their since inception. Broken idol of
Lord Laxman is removed. Considering schedule of Ram Navami festival
and sentiments of public at large and the belief, it is just and proper to
allow the defendants to install a new idol of Lord Laxman.
7 Adv. Mr. Gole made a statement that he will remove new
idol of Lord Laxman as and when Court directs. In my opinion, prima
facie case is not made out by the plaintiffs for above reasons. Hence, I
answer issue No.1 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.2.
8 Balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants.
They are in management of the temple. They have arranged Ram
Navami festival. Idol of Lord Laxman is essential in Ram Navami
festival. Thus, I answer point No.2 accordingly.
AS TO POINT NO.3.
9 In respect of irreparable loss, I am of the opinion that it
does not survive. It is because Adv. Ms. Thakkar urged to accept
antique idols of Lord Laxman and Goddess Gaodevi. Adv. Mr. Gole
submitted that old idols which have been removed are kept in the
temple and he is ready to hand over to the plaintiffs Under such
circumstances, question of irreparable loss does not arise.
10 Till further orders, the defendants shall not carry out
function of immersion of the removed idols and shall not remove it
from the temple where they have been kept after removal from the
original place. The defendants are at liberty to install and perform Pran
-- 3 of 5 --
4
Pratisthapana (izk.k izfr”Bkiuk ) of idols of Lord Laxman and Goddess
Gaodevi in presence of plaintiffs.
11 During dictation, it is informed to me that in the morning,
Pran Pratisthapana (izk.k izfr”Bkiuk ) of idols of Lord Laxman and Goddess
Gaodevi has been performed as per scheduled programme. Thus,
Notice of Motion is frustrated.
12 Therefore, it is necessary to issue directions in the present
event and pass following order.
ORDER
1 Notice of Motion No.1209 of 2018 is disposed off as
frustrated.
2 Sr. PI of Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station is directed to
deploy API or PSI to take photographs of the idols removed from
Rameshwar Temple and new idols installed in the place of it in
Rameshwar Temple, at the cost of the defendants from eight angles
and submit it to the Court alongwith panchanama regarding it within
48 hours.
3 The defendant Nos.1 to 18 shall not dispose off idols which
are removed.
Dictated and declared in open Court.
( A.I. PERAMPALLI )
Judge,
Dt.: 23/03/2018. City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on :23/03/2018.
Transcribed on :23/03/2018.
Signed on :23/03/2018.
-- 4 of 5 --
5
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.
UPLOADED ON: 23/03/2018.
TIME:05.00 p.m. (Santosh B. Sawant)
(H.G. Stenographer)
Name of the Judge(with Court Room
No.)
Shri. A.I. Perampalli, Judge, C.R.No.13.
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment /Order
23/03/2018.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 23/03/2018.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 23/03/2018.
-- 5 of 5 --