"In order to avoid Appellant 1 Ankit Mishra now advancing the contention that the costs had to be shared by Lord Hanuman, it is clarified that the costs would be entirely payable by him- with a small 'h‘."

The Court was reviewing a case where a defendant had occupied land through adverse possession and constructed a temple on it. The rightful owner of the land (plaintiff) sought to remove the defendants from the property.  Eventually, a trial court issued a settlement decree, wherein the plaintiff agreed to pay ₹11 lakh to the defendants for vacating the land. However, when they refused to comply, the plaintiff filed an execution petition.

The appellant before the High Court, Mishra, filed an objection petition before the lower court, contending that since the land belonged to Lord Hanuman (in whose honor the temple was constructed), he was entitled to safeguard the deity's interests as his next friend. When the trial court rejected this plea, Mishra appealed to the High Court.

He argued that the settlement decree between the plaintiff and defendants was an attempt to obstruct him from offering prayers and conducting rituals at the temple in question.

"I never thought that God would, one day, be a litigant before me. This appears, however, thankfully, to be a case of Divinity By Proxy."

This is the worst and most pernicious kind of practice that can be resorted to, he added.

The Court noted that there was nothing to indicate, even prima facie, that the temple was a public temple.