Satender Kumar Upmanyu v. Vijay Nanwal & Ors.

1. This is an application for condonation of 14 days’ delay in refiling the appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and 14 days’ delay in refiling the appeal is condoned as ‘sufficient cause’ is shown.

3. The application stands disposed of. R.S.A. No.82 OF 2012

1. This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 sub-section (1) of CPC against the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned 2013:DHC:849 Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 passed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been contended that the appellant was working as a pujari in the temple in question and he could not have been turned out by the respondents without any rhyme or reason. He further contended that the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence adduced.

3. I have carefully considered the submissions as well as gone through the record. The appellant has essentially raised questions of appreciation of evidence. I am afraid, so far as the questions of appreciation of evidence are concerned, that is, beyond the scope of the second appeal as it is not the case of the appellant that the finding of fact arrived at by the court below is not supported by the evidence. His case is that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. The evidence has already been appreciated by the courts below and they have arrived at a concurrent finding. The regular second appeal is admissible only when a substantial question of law is involved. No substantial question of law has been formulated or shown to the court to be arising from the appeal in question.

4. It is admittedly not the case of the appellant that this is a case without there being evidence or that the finding is perverse. In this regard, it may be pertinent to mention that the appellant herein filed a suit against Vijay Nanwal, Delhi Electricity Workers Union, DESU Ekta Karamchari Union (Regd.), The General Manager, BSES Shakti Kiran Building and The Chief Executive, BSES Shakti Kiran Building (all respondents herein) for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction.

5. The case of the appellant was that he was appointed as pujari by the authorized union, that is, respondent Nos.[2] and 3 herein in respect of a temple situated on a parcel of land bearing No.C-6/C-7, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, which previously belonged to DESU and after unbundling of its successor DVB, this parcel of land had gone to the respondent No.4, The General Manager, BSES, Shakti Kiran Building. The appellant has contended that on satisfaction of his services as a pujari, his services were confirmed by the Union. Necessary documents in this regard were relied upon by the appellant and accordingly, the aforesaid three reliefs were prayed.

6. All the respondents filed their written statement and the respondent No.4 and 5 contested the claim of the appellant that he was a legally appointed pujari for the purpose of conducting pujas at a mandir situated on their property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 2, 4 and 5

(v) Relief.”

7. So far as issue Nos.[1] to 3 are concerned, they were dealt with together by the learned trial court which arrived at a finding that there was no vested right with the appellant to have been validly appointed as a pujari by the competent person and, therefore, he could not be granted declaration as prayed for. Similarly, his prayer for grant of mandatory and permanent injunction was also disallowed. Accordingly, in nutshell, the suit was dismissed on 27.11.2010.

8. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant preferred the first appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 28.11.2011. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the judgment passed by the trial court.