[ad_1]
SHAH ALAM: The Shah Alam High Court ruled that the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple located in the USJ 25 would remain until January 11, pending the hearing of a provisional injunction against the promoter.
This turnaround took place yesterday in the Shah Alam High Court, hours after another judge of the same High Court rejected an offer to block the displacement of the temple.
The current chairman of the temple committee, Mr. Ramachandran, and 49 other people, had requested the injunction to stop work on November 21 against seven defendants, among them the former chairman of the temple committee , K. Chellapa, the One City Development Sdn Bhd and the Selangor Government.
Complainants' lawyer, A. Vasanthi, said the case was heard on 23 November before Judge Gunalan, who rejected the proposal to relocate temple hours earlier.
"He had asked us to serve him to all parties involved. However, when we appeared before him today, Judge Gunalan objected, saying that he had already rendered his judgment on the same matter.
"Judge Wong Kian Kheong immediately took over," said Vasanthi.
Statement: Protesters holding placards seeking justice at a rally at Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple.
She said that Wong had then set the hearing of the interim injunction to January 11 and decided to preserve the status quo of the case.
"He granted a temporary injunction pending the hearing of the interim injunction. We will exchange affidavits by then, "said Vasanthi.
However, this was contradicted by Lawyer Brenda Chan of Skrine and Co.
As a representative of One City Development, she stated that her client had offered not to perform work on the temple site prior to the date of the hearing and that no interim injunction had been issued. therefore been pronounced.
"In the interest of maintaining the peace, our client has committed not to continue the execution of the possession of his land, until the request for injunction is heard on January 11, 2019.
"The court never issued an order for interim injunction.
"Our client has promised to do nothing on the temple site by then," Chan said.
A few hours earlier, the same court had rejected an offer to block the temple's move.
Three people, acting as temple administrators, filed yesterday a motion to strike out the eviction order of the promoters.
However, the High Court dismissed the injunction against a 2014 consent judgment ordering the removal of the temple.
Click on the image for more information
Attorney S. Morgan, representing the plaintiff Thangaraju Sundarajoo, said he would bring a civil suit against the promoter, the state government and the faction of the opposing temple.
"After going through all the reasons, the court found that the plaintiffs had no reason to obtain a suspension without costs," he said.
The representative of the temple labor force, V.K. Regu said that they could resubmit the application to a new judge.
There are contradictory statements about the origins of the temple. One faction wants the temple to remain at its current location, claiming it's over 100 years old, while the other claims that it's only 44 years old.
The land on which the temple is located has also been the subject of disputes since the mid-1990s.
However, in March 2014, an order of the Shah Alam High Court ordered the current occupiers to assign it to One City Development within two months of the construction of a new temple at USJ 23, about 2.5 km from the current site.
Urban development was also expected to deposit RM 1.5 million in the temple and assume construction costs in the event of a move.
Related stories:
Selangor wants the problem of the temple to be settled amicably
Fireman Adib in progress
Use freedom of expression responsibly, warns Dr. M
"No compromise on public order"
City complex claims rioters ransacked its premises
Lawyers will take action against the culprit of WhatsApp
Wee: Statements to Parliament in a timely manner
[ad_2]
Source link
