Ajit Kumar, J. - (1.) This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5th February, 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ ST Act), Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11th July, 2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur in O.S. No. 1425 of 1993 which had been dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C.").
(2.) First substantial question of law which has been pressed before this Court is that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant under the Order XVII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. on the ground that the application was placed before the trial court to adduce evidence in the form of oral evidence and, therefore, there was no occasion to dismiss the suit. The second substantial question of law which has been argued is that the trial court has rejected the application No. 294-C by wrongly interpreting the provisions for adducing and taking the evidence under Order XVIII Rule 2 read with Rule 3 (A) of C.P.C. The third substantial question of law that has been argued and pressed with much emphasis is that the lower appellate court could not have decided the issues on merits merely by placing reliance on the findings returned by the trial court while disposing of the injunction application.
(3.) The brief facts of the appellant's case is that the plaintiff-appellant through its Sarvarakar/ Manager filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants-respondents from raising any construction on the land described as C-1FED in the plaint map and further not to interfere in the Pooja etc. being performed by the public in general. The basis of the claim as set up in the plaint is that the land in suit earlier belonged to Betiya, State of Bihar under the management of the Maharajganj of Betiya and after the land stood transferred to court of wards. Bihar State had constructed at some point of time a residential Kothi which is now being used as commercial complex and it is the same state that had constructed the temple where the pooja etc. is being performed by the people in general and there is open land around the temple given to the religious trust of the temple as a sahan (appurtenant land) and the land in suit marked as ABCDEF over the part of that marked as ABC-1 whereas there is a platform there is will and the land south to the temple marked as C-1FED is being used as a sahan of the temple and it is this land which is in dispute.;