Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors Vs Kamlesh Sharma

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

181 paragraphs · 1,449 words

Prathiba M. Singh, J",,

This hearing has been done through video conferencing.,,

CM. APPLs.20947/2021, 20948/2021, 20950/2021, 20951/2021 in CM(M) 323/2021 (for exemptions)",,

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.",,

CM. APPL.20946/2021 (for condonation of delay) in CM(M)323/2021,,

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the review is",,

condoned. Application is disposed of.,,

CM APPL. 20904/2021 (for modification) in FAO 36/2021,,

Issue notice. Mr. Qayam Ud Din, ld. Counsel, accepts notice.",,

Let reply be filed within one weeks. Rejoinder be filed before the next date of hearing.,,

CM APPL. 14178/2021 (for appointment of Court Receivers) in CM(M) 323/2021,,

Vide order dated 16th April 2021, read with the Corrigendum to the same, court receivers were appointed in this matter for a period from 17th April",,

2021 till 22nd/23rd April 2021, i.e., for the period of the Shashmahi Bari, in order to assess the offerings and donations as also the tehbazari rights.",,

However, as recorded in the order dated 10th May 2021, due to the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the directions which were given to the",,

court receivers could not be given effect to.,,

In view of the same, the Respondent No. 1 was directed to place on record the complete records of their collections during the period of the said",,

bari i.e., 24th/25th March 2021 to 22nd/23rd April, 2021, before this court.",,

A compliance affidavit to that effect has been filed by Respondent No. 1. The court shall consider the same on the next date of hearing.,,

Copy of the affidavit be served on all the ld. Counsels who may file a response, if any, within one week. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed before",,

the next date.,,

CM. APPL.20945/2021 (for review/modification of the order dated 16th April 2021) and CM. APPL. 20949/2021 (for appointment of,,

receiver) in CM(M) 323/2021,,

10.

These are applications moved by the Respondent No. 1 â€" Mahender Kumar Pandey, for review/modification of the order dated 16th April 2021,",,

and for fresh appointment of Court receivers in the forthcoming bari commencing on the midnight of 19th and 20th July 2021.,,

11.

Mr. Thakur, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that repeated orders have been passed in favour of his client by the trial courts, holding that the",,

monthly bari would be an exclusive bari of his client - i.e., Mr. Bishan Swaroop.",,

12.

Mr. Deb, ld. Counsel however expresses his apprehension that the bari would be sold and Mr. Bhardwaj is likely to conduct puja sewa and collect",,

the offerings. Mr. Thakur refutes this submission and submits that Mr. Bishan Swaroop himself will be conducting the puja.,,

13.

Accordingly, issue notice in these applications. Mr. Thakur, ld. counsel accepts notice.",,

14.

Let replies be filed within one week. Rejoinders, thereto, be filed before the next date of hearing.",,

15.

In the meantime, Ms. Manmeet Arora, Advocate (M: 9811333871) is appointed as the Local Commissioner in this matter. The Local",,

Commissioner shall pay surprise visits to the Kalkaji Mandir at least twice during the next ten days, in order to ascertain as to who is conducting the",,

puja sewa and who is collecting the offerings which are being put into the donation boxes and being given during the puja sewas. The Local,,

Commissioner shall also report on any other relevant issues relating to the temple and temple complex, bearing in mind her earlier report including the",,

cleanliness/hygiene levels at the Mandir and facilities for devotees. The report of the Local Commissioner shall be filed at least two days before the,,

next date of hearing. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per visit, to be paid by the Petitioner, i.e., by Mr. Thakurâ€™s client.",,

16.

It is made clear that complete accounts of the offerings which are collected during the monthly bari, from the midnight of 19th/20th July 2021, shall",,

be maintained by Mr. Thakurâ€™s client, and the same shall be filed with the court at the end of the bari. In addition, the accounts of donations,",,

offerings etc., till 31st July shall be placed on affidavit on 2nd August 2021. It shall also be emailed to the Court master.",,

17.

List on 3rd August 2021.,,

FAO 36/2021 & CM APPLs. 2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021 CM(M) 323/2021",,

18.

These are part heard matters.,,

19.

Mr. Qayam Ud Din, ld. counsel submits that he appears for all the Appellants in FAO 36/2021. He has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the",,

Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, and the same is on record. He submits that he would be filing the Vakalatnama, for the remaining Appellants as well. Let the",,

same be filed within one week.,,

20.

Both these cases are related to the Kalkaji Mandir. Further to the previous orders, a list of various litigations in respect of the Kalkaji Mandir, that",,

are pending in various courts, has been placed before this Court. The said list mentions a total of 39 cases. The ld. counsels of the parties, who are",,

present in the hearing today, have also given details of three further cases which are stated to be pending. The said pending cases can be categorized",,

in the following manner:,,

S. No.,Case Number,Case title

6,"CS DJ 210196/2016

(ADJ, South East,

Saket Courts)","Sapan Bhardwaj v. Ram Vishal Shakti and

Anr.

7,"CS SCJ 572/2017

(SCJ, South East,

Saket Courts)",Chunnu Singh v. Naveen Kumar

8,"RCA SCJ/1/2020

(SCJ, South East,

Saket Courts)","Ashok Bhardwaj v. Dinkar Bhardwaj and

Ors.

9,"CS SCJ/ 221/2021

(SCJ, South East,

Saket)","Sumit Kumar Sharma and ors. v. Shri Kalkaji

Mandir Prabandhak Sudhar Committee and

ors.

10,"CS DJ/613623/2016

(SCJ, South East,

Saket)",Bhagwan Devi v. Ved Prakash and ors.

11,"CS SCJ/ 51158/2016

(SCJ, South East,