Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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