Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Trial Court's Extension of Status Quo to Protect Worship Rights Deemed Justified: J&K HC

02 October 2024 8:13 PM

By: sayum


Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petitions in Ghulam Rasool Chaku & Ors. vs. Ishwar Ashram Trust, affirming an interim order allowing devotees to offer prayers at a temple on disputed land. The court ruled that maintaining status quo was necessary to protect the rights of devotees until the final resolution of the ongoing property dispute.

The property in question, measuring approximately 8 kanals, located at Gupt Ganga Nishat Srinagar, was the subject of multiple suits between the petitioners, Ghulam Rasool Chaku & Ors., and the respondent, Ishwar Ashram Trust. The petitioners claimed ownership, while the respondent trust argued that the land was donated to it by Smt. Kamla Devi, who had constructed a temple on the land.

The trial court, in 1997, had declared the petitioners as owners, but the respondent trust challenged this through multiple suits. After a prolonged legal battle, in 2013, the High Court had ordered the consolidation of suits and directed both parties to maintain status quo, allowing devotees to continue offering prayers at the temple.

The petitioners challenged the ex parte order passed by the trial court on December 30, 2013, which extended the status quo order, arguing that it was passed without hearing their side and that there was no temple on the property at the time of acquisition.

The key issue was whether the trial court’s ex parte order extending the status quo was valid, especially since the applications for similar relief were still pending before the court. The petitioners argued that the interim order was passed without due consideration and should not have been extended without hearing them.

The respondent trust, on the other hand, argued that the temple on the disputed land had historical significance and that the rights of devotees to offer prayers should be protected until the matter was fully adjudicated.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court, presided by Justice Sanjay Dhar, dismissed the petitioners’ challenge. The court found that the trial court’s order extending the interim arrangement was neither illegal nor perverse. The High Court emphasized that the trial court’s discretion in protecting the subject matter of the dispute, including the rights of devotees, was justified, especially in the absence of a decision on the pending interim applications.

The court noted that while there were conflicting claims regarding the construction of the temple, the existence of the temple on the disputed land was not in question. Thus, the status quo needed to be maintained to prevent any disruption to religious practices.

The High Court upheld the status quo order, allowing devotees to continue offering prayers at the temple and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing on the interim injunction applications. The court also dismissed the contempt petition related to the case.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2024

Ghulam Rasool Chaku & Ors. vs. Ishwar Ashram Trust​.

Latest Legal News