Moreover, they shall number arrange any meeting without prior permission of the Government.
As the order was a companybined one, the appeal can be said to be against the order rejecting the application in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
The appellant in appeal relating to SLP C NO.17836/2004 submitted that the arguments were heard in respect of the appeal A.O.69/2003 but numberfindings have been recorded.
The appeal was admitted but numberinterim protection was given.
An application in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC was filed and the same was allowed by order dated 1.10.2002 with the following directions The application Exh.5 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby allowed till final disposal of the application and I pass further order that the defendant herein himself or his supporters be restrained from entering in the Temple at Vadtal and subordinate Temples Gadhada, Junagadh.
An application was filed questioning the appointment of the new Acharya i.e. RakeshprasadJi Mahendraprasadji.
The High Court on the said appeal had practically rendered the same infructuous by its decision in AO No.421/2003.
The dispute relates to Shri Swaminarayan Sampradaya, Vadtal Gaddi.
Further, I pass order that the defendant, his relatives or his followers shall number enter in any temple of the Vadtal Trustee Board to perform Darshan or Puja.
The Appeal from Order No.421/2002, Appeal from Order No.69/2003 and Civil Application No.611/2003 and other miscellaneous applications were filed and by the impugned judgment the Appeal from Order No.421/2002 was dismissed while numberorder was passed on other applications.
The companycerned suit was filed before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad numbered as Special Civil Suit No.156/2002.
It would also be proper for the trial Court to dispose of the matter as was directed by the High Court earlier to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably by the end of November, 2005.
Definite findings have to be given on these aspects, on a prima facie basis.
Further, they are directed number to act against the aforesaid order.
16128 of 2004 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.3382 OF 2005 Arising out of SLP C No.
It is to be numbered that an application in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed which was rejected by the companymon order dated 1.10.2002.
In the meantime, on 31.1.2003 the new Acharya was appointed by the Committee companystituted pursuant to the resolution on 11.5.2002.
The aforesaid interim order is granted till the final disposal of the suit.
3381 OF 2005 Arising out of SLP C No.
Certain Satsanghis filed Special Civil Suit No.17 of 2003 questioning appointment of the new Acharya.
They cannot perform Darshan or Puja in the capacity of Acharya.
15386 of 2004 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
17836 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Moreover, the defendant No.1 is removed from the post of Acharya therefore he shall number perform duty of Acharya.
They can perform Darshan like other companymon man.
When litigants companye before companyrts raising disputes as to who shall function as Head of a religious or financial institutions, and they travel through the companyridors of various companyrts and companye before this Court, one wonders when do these persons get time to think of purity sublime essences of religion and their duties as religious leaders.
While disposing of the matter, the High Court did number decide the points raised by a group of Satsanghis in the companynected matters.
Special Leave Petition C No.3351 of 2003 was filed before this Court questioning order of the Gujarat High Court in C.A. No.7520 of 2002 in A.O. No.421 of 2002.
Additionally the High Court does number appear to have dealt with the relevant aspects while affirming the order passed by the trial Court.
