- (1.) Heard Sri Mayankar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. By means of the present revision, the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balrampur in Regular Suit No. 54 of 2007, Dharmada Committee, Bhagwatiganj, Balrampur v. Sanjai Tripathi and others is under challenge. In brief, the fact of the present case are that the revisionist filed a regular suit for eviction of the respondents in respect to the property in question and the same is registered as Regular Suit No. 54 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Balrampur.
(2.) The case as set up by the revisionist-plaintiff in the said suit is that the father of respondent No. 1 was 'Pujari' of 'Ram Janki Mandir' appointed by the revisionist and the premises in question/house was given to him free of cost to live and to perform 'Pooja' etc. After his death Sanjai Tripathi and Smt. Laxmi Devi (respondent Nos. 1 and 2), who are son and wife respectively have no concern with the temple as such have no right or locus to live in the house and the issue No. 2 which has been framed by the Court below is quoted as under:- Is Ashaya se virchit kiya gaya hai ki kya vadigar dwara vaad ka mulyankan kum kiya gaya hai tatha pradat nyaya shulk aparyapt hai?
(3.) In other to adjudicate and decide the said issue, the Court below had appointed Amin Commissioner to submit the report, who accordingly submitted the same (on record as Amin's Akhya as Paper No. Ga-2/20) confirmed by the Court below subject to evidence led by the parties.;