- (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after re­ferred as C.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 30-03-2000, whereby the trial court (District Judge, Pauri Garhwal) has quashed the permission granted by his predecessor under Sec­tion 92 of C.P.C. to institute the suit, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par­ties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs/ap­pellants - Budh Nath and Satimpal, in­stituted suit No. 13 of 1994, under Sec­tion 92 of C.P.C. before District Judge, Pauri, seeking following reliefs : (a) That a scheme be got prepared for maintenance, management and 'pooja' in the temple and Dharamshala in suit. (b) That the defendant be directed to give accounts of income from the temple property. (c) The defendant be restrained from interfering in the work of Pujari and Manager of the tem­ple and property.
(3.) DISTRICT Judge, Pauri, vide his or­der dated 02-05-1994, granted the per­mission under Section 92 of the Code and passed following order : “5-C is an application by the plain­tiff for permitting them to file this suit under Sec. 92(1) of the C.P.C. with the allegations that the temple of Hanuman Ji is situated in Khata No. 41, Khet No. 230 in Kasba-Srinagar and Khet No. 237 is also the property of said temple, where the statue of God Garur is situated. The entire property adjoining the temple including the Dharmshala is the property of the temple but the O.P. is intended to sell the property of the temple and is usually treated his personal property. He is also making altercations in the property. The applicants being Hindus and being in trust in the property main­tenance of the temple property and temple and their Pooja-path, accord­ing to Hindu religion. They want to file the suit. Affidavit by Sri Budhnath has also been filed in support of these alle­gations. Besides this extract of Khatauni, copy of the report of Su­pervisor Kanoongo dated 13-08-1978, report of P.S.-Srinagar, report of Patwari dated 15-01-1978, copy of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, have also been filed and thereby the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case under Sec. 92(1). Accordingly, the permission is granted to the plaintiff to file the suit. District Judge” ;