ARUN BHANSALI, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5/9/2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Nohar, District - Hanumangarh, whereby, the trial court has interpreted the decree dated 25/3/2019 based on the compromise dated 8/9/1978.
(2.) The dispute between the parties pertains to the right to worship/conduct 'Seva Puja' and appropriate offerings at two points, Nahar Singh Ji ka Kund (xxx) and Nahar Singh Ji ka Chirag (xxx) at Gogamedi temple. The dispute has a chequered history, as is usual with civil litigation specially pertaining to rights in relation to temples, apparently as the stakes in the offerings increase over a period of time and same starts taking precedence over the worship at the temple.
(3.) The suit was instituted by the original plaintiffs Akhe Ram and others, wherein, the compromise dated 8/9/1978 was executed between the plaintiffs and defendants and based on the said compromise a decree dated 25/3/1980 was passed. The State Government issued notification dated 27/4/1981 (Annex.8) publishing the lists of Govt. Temples under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 ('the Act, 1959'). Whereafter, the Devasthan Department distributed the points of worship between the Brahmin Pujaris (petitioners) and Chayal Pujaris (respondents), which lead to filing of writ petition by the decree holders - petitioners being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6836/2008 before this Court and against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the said case, D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No. 175/2013 was filed, whereby, the Division Bench by its order dated 26/8/2013 gave certain directions. Following the said directions, the executing court was approached. Based on the directions of the Division Bench, the executing court framed points of determination and after hearing the parties and referring to the pleadings of the parties, came to the following conclusion: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the executing court committed error in interpreting the decree in the manner it is indicated in the order. It was submitted that the consent decree is a contract between the parties and while construing the decree, the court was required to take into consideration the pleadings as well as proceedings leading to the decree as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavan Vaja & Ors. vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang & Ors. : AIR 1972 SC 1371 and Parayya Allayya Hittalamani vs. Parayya Gurulingayya Poojari & Ors. : AIR 2008 SC 241. However, the executing court has ignored the crucial documents and has interpreted the decree in a manner which is contrary to the intention of the parties and against the settled practice pertaining to worship and entitlement to the offerings at two points of worship i.e. 'Kund' 1/4 M 1/2 and 'Chirag' 1/4 x 1/2.;