S.N. Sahay, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated December 17, 1988 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned District Judge, Faizabad in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1988.
(2.) RAM Chandra Das has instituted a suit bearing No. 103 of 1978 against Ram Nihal Das and Vimaleshwaranand for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. He claims to be Mahant of the Gaddi of Samadhi Govind Sahib situate in village Ahirauli, Tahsil fanda, District Faizabad. The suit was contested by the Defendants who claimed to be Mahant of the said Gaddi. The Plaintiff moved application 6/C, for temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering in the peaceful discharge of his duties as Mahant during the pendency of the suit. The application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge by order dated December 7, 1978. An appeal was preferred against this order which was Misc Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1978. The appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faizabad on November 23, 1979 and the application filed by the Plaintiff for temporary injunction, was rejected The Plaintiff filed Writ Petition No. 3398 of 1979 against the order dated November 23, 1979. The operation of the order was stayed in the writ petition on November 22, 1979. The stay order was modified on April 9, 1980 and the following directions were issued: Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petition at this stage, I am of the view that the interim order which has been passed by the court is to be modified in the interest of the Petitioner and in the interest of the institution for preservation of the property of the Gaddi in question including the realisation of Tahbazari dues is concerned, neither the Petitioner nor the opposite parties will exercise any power pending disposal of the writ petition or the disposal of the suit or the disposal of the application for appointment of receiver in the case in case the same is still pending whichever event occurs earlier, the management of the Immovable property may be given in the charge of some other person, who may while managing the property consult the Petitioner as well as the opposite party Ram Nihal Das. So far as moveable property is concerned, a list of the same may be prepared and the same be submitted before the Court of Civil Judge. The Court of the Civil Judge where the suit is pending may appoint some person to manage the property during the period so far as the realisation of money including lahbazari are concerned and account is to be submitted before the Court every fortnightly by Manager so appointed who will also deposit the same before it every for night. So far as the other matters are concerned the parties would maintain status -quo as it stands today. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated April 9, 1980 the learned Civil Judge appointed Sri Ganesh Prasad Shukla, Advocate by order dated April 17, 1980 to act as receiver. This order was modified on Paril 24, 1980 and Sri Srawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate was appointed as receiver Sri Misra acted as receiver from August 24. to December 6, 1980. In the meantime writ petition No. 3398 of 1979 was decided. The writ petition was allowed on September 12, 1990 and the order dated November 23 1979 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge was set aside and it was directed that the appeal shall be decided de novo. In view of the decision of the writ petition, the interim order dated April 9, 1980 passed therein was discharged and the order appointing receiver was vacated by the learned Civil Judge on December 6, 1980.
(3.) IN pursuance of the order dated December 12, 1980 passed in the above mentioned writ petition, the learned III Additional District Judge Faizabad heard Misc Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1978 afresh and decided it on May 19, 1983. He allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and again rejected the application 6/C for temporary injunction filed by the Plaintiff. Aggrieved from the order the Plaintiff approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 3043 of 1983, which was however, dismissed on February 11, 1987.;