Court dismisses bid to postpone developer's takeover of temple site
The High Court in Shah Alam today dismissed a stay application against the consent judgment and execution of a writ of possession for the relocation of the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in USJ25 Subang Jaya, which has been the location of recent riots.
High Court judge Gunalan Muniandy made the ruling in chambers after hearing the application from three Hindu devotees: S Thangaraju, M M Mohanakrishnan and S Nagarajah of the temple’s devotees’ association.
Lawyer Claudia Cheah Pek Yee, who acted on behalf of one of the defendants, One City Development Sdn Bhd, said the judge made the ruling after finding that the three had no locus standi in the case and that the developer is the legitimate owner of the land in question.
"The judge gave many grounds. Essentially, the plaintiffs have no locus standi because the temple is represented by first defendant K Chellappa, who was decided by the court order, and that the judge finds that this is res judicata because the issue raised has been decided (in court) earlier.
"These are the grounds why he refused to allow the stay.
"The judge also finds that the consent judgement is still valid and enforceable. It has not been set aside, so similarly the writ of possession is still valid, and the fifth defendant, my client, is the lawful owner of the land. So you cannot get a stay against the landowner," she said.
Chee said her client has also filed an application to strike out the suit brought by the plaintiffs, and they are waiting for direction from the court to set a hearing date.
However, in another case concerning the same temple, which involves an injunction that was also brought before Justice Gunalan this morning, the judge recused himself.
Temple Task Force member VK Regu (photo) said the judge decided to transfer the case, which was brought by 50 plaintiffs, to another judge.
"Just now in court, the judge (Justice Gunalan) ruled that the case (injunction) will be heard by another judge as he had made a ruling to dismiss another case (concerning the temple).
"He does not want to prejudice this case, so a new judge will be handling it," he told reporters at the Shah Alam Courts Complex lobby.
Regu said the group that filed the injunction would file their case again by today, and would be ready to continue before a new judge.
According to court documents, the injunction was filed to prevent One City's agents or employees from approaching the temple to demolish it or for any other purposes until a final decision is made on the matter, to get a stay of execution against a writ of possession, and other relief deemed fit by the court, including costs.
It was filed by M Ramachandran and nine others, who claimed to represent 40 other temple devotees.
The case was later heard by High Court judge Wong Kian Kheong who granted the plaintiffs an ad interim injunction.
However, this was disputed by the defendants who said an injunction wasn't granted and that the court had only asked them to give an undertaking not to demolish the temple.
The plaintiffs' lawyers later said they will seek a clarification from the court tomorrow.
Report this comment
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.