Twists and turns to temple saga

Decision made after denial of bid to halt relocation

● Temple stays where it is, at least until Jan 11, says court – hours after another judge allowed its relocation.

● Group: 100 years old? No, it was built only 44 years ago.

● WhatsApp message claims two lawyers paid thugs to create ruckus. Both deny this and want to sue the person behind it.

● No ad interim injunction made, says developer’s lawyer. Plaintiffs insist there is.

SHAH ALAM: The Shah Alam High Court has decided that the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in USJ 25 will remain where it is until Jan 11, pending the hearing of an interim injunction against the developer.

This turnaround took place at the Shah Alam High Court yesterday – hours after another judge at the same High Court rejected a bid to block the relocation of the temple.

Current temple committee chairman M. Ramachandran and 49 others had sought the injunction to stop work on Nov 21 against seven defendants, which included former temple committee chairman K. Chellapa, One City Development Sdn Bhd and the Selangor government.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs, A. Vasanthi, said that the case came up for hearing on Nov 23 before Judge M. Gunalan, who rejected the bid to relocate the temple hours earlier.

“He had asked us to serve it on all parties involved. However, when we went before him today, Judge Gunalan recused himself as he said he had made an earlier judgment on the same matter.

“Judge Wong Kian Kheong immediately took over,” said Vasanthi.

She said Wong then fixed the hearing of the interim injunction to Jan 11 and decided to preserve the status quo of the matter.

“He granted an ad interim injunction pending the hearing of the interim injunction. We will be exchanging affidavits by then,” said Vasanthi.

However, this was contradicted by lawyer Brenda Chan from Skrine and Co.

In acting for One City Development, she said her client offered not to do any works on the site of the temple until the date of hearing and therefore no ad interim injunction was made.

“In the interest of keeping the peace, our client has given an undertaking not to proceed with execution of possession of its land, until the injunction application is heard on Jan 11, 2019.

“No ad interim injunction order was given by the court at any point.

“Our client has promised not to do anything on the site of the temple until then,” added Chan.

Hours earlier, the same court rejected a bid to block the relocation of the temple.

Three individuals, acting as the administrators of the temple, had filed an application to strike out the eviction order from the developers yesterday.

However, the High Court dismissed the injunction against a 2014 consent judgment ordering the temple to be relocated.

Lawyer S. Morgan, representing plaintiff Thangaraju Sundarajoo, said they would file a civil suit against the developer, the state government and the opposing temple faction.

“The court, after reading through all the grounds, ruled that the plaintiffs don’t have grounds to get a stay at no cost,” he said.

Temple task force representative V.K. Regu said they might resubmit the application before a new judge.

There are conflicting statements on the origins of the temple. One faction wants the temple to remain at its current location, saying it is over 100 years old, while the other claims that it is merely 44 years old.

The land the temple sits on has also been a subject of dispute since the mid-1990s.

However, in March 2014, a court order by the Shah Alam High Court required the existing occupiers of the land to hand it over to One City Development within two months after a new temple has been completed in USJ 23, about 2.5km away from the current site.

One City Development was also required to deposit RM1.5mil to the temple as well as bear the building cost should it be relocated.