Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 527 (KAR)

Guru Madhwa Seva Samithi v. Katti Ananth Acharya

2002-08-23

N.K.PATIL

body2002
ORDER N.K. Patil, J.--Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Petitioners assailing the validity of the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet dated 11.7.2002 in Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001, have presented this revision petition. 3. The Respondent herein filed O.S. No. 20 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Harapanahalli for a declaration that he is a hereditary Archaka of Sri Guru Madhwa Temple of Gurumadhwa Mutt at Harapanahalli and also sought consequential injunction restraining the Petitioners herein from interfering with the alleged hereditary right. Ex-parte injunction was refused. The Petitioners appeared and contested the suit denying the alleged right of the Respondent. The trial Court, after hearing the interim application for Temporary Injunction, rejected the same by its order dated 10.9.1998. The Respondent-Plaintiff filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet. The appellate Court by its order dated 23.1.1999 allowed the said appeal in part and granted an injunction and further held that the Archakship or the performance of the Pooja shall also be directly under the supervision and control of the Petitioners-Samithi. Against the said order passed by the appellate Court, the Petitioners herein had filed the Civil Revision Petition No. 567 of 1999. This Court after hearing both parties passed the order dated 18.8.2000 dismissing the said revision petition. When things thus stood, after dismissal of the revision petition filed by the Petitioners, the Respondent filed Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001 on 4.7.2001 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1999 under Sections 151 and 152 Code of Civil Procedure on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet. In the said application, the Respondent prayed for amendment of the directions in the decree drafted by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet dated 23.1.1999. The Petitioners filed their objections contending that the Miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent is not maintainable. However, after hearing both the parties, the Court has allowed the said application, Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001 filed by the Respondent by its order dated 11.7.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hospet, the Petitioners have presented this revision petition. 4. However, after hearing both the parties, the Court has allowed the said application, Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001 filed by the Respondent by its order dated 11.7.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hospet, the Petitioners have presented this revision petition. 4. The principal submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the request of the Respondent considered by the trial Court is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and the order passed by this Court. He vehemently contended that this Court by its order dated 18.8.2000 in Civil Revision Petition No. 567 of 1999 has specifically stated that the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court is to the effect that the Respondent-Plaintiff is permitted to continue his work as archak of the said institution under the direct supervision and control of Petitioner-1, Samithi, pending final disposal of the suit. Therefore, he submitted that when this Court has confirmed the order passed by the appellate Court and has clarified in unequivocal terms that the Respondent should perform his day to day Pooja under the direct supervision and control of the Petitioner No. 1-Samithi, the trial Court was in error in passing a perverse order and the said order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable in the eye of law. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Sri La Sri Ajabanatessara Pandara Sannadhi, Hereditary Madathipathi and Atheenakarthar of Velakurichi Mutt and Hereditary Managing Trustee of Sri Agneeswaraswami Devasthanam, Tiruppugalur and Sri Rudrapatheeswara Devasthanam Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, (1967) 80 LW 576 , wherein it has been held that the trial Court cannot amend a decree where it has been appealed against and the same had merged with the decree of the appellate Court and he, therefore, submitted that in view of the said judgment rendered by this Court following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co., AIR 1958 SC 868 and Collector of Customs, Calcutta Vs. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1124 , the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is not sustainable under the relevant provisions of the Act. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, inter alia contended and justified the impugned order. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co., AIR 1958 SC 868 and Collector of Customs, Calcutta Vs. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1124 , the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is not sustainable under the relevant provisions of the Act. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, inter alia contended and justified the impugned order. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Bombay High Court and this Court in support of his case. He further pointed out that the Respondent being a hereditary archak of the said Temple, is entitled to perform the pooja and therefore, contended that the trial Court has not committed any error in considering the request of the Respondent and the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Petitioners herein had filed Civil Revision Petition No. 567 of 1999 before this Court against the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 23.1.1999 passed in M.A. No. 19 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet. This Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said revision petition by its order dated 18.8.2000 and held that it is an undisputed fact that Respondent-Plaintiff had been working as an archaka till the date of filing the suit i.e., 5.2.1998 the first Petitioner-Samithi had been managing the affairs of the suit institution and has further clarified that by the impugned order of the lower appellate Court, Respondent-Plaintiff is permitted to continue his work as archaka of the said institution under the direct supervision and control of Petitioner-1 Samithi, pending final disposal of the suit. In view of the clear finding given by this Court and clarification made, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court merges with the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have considered the request of the Petitioners once the order passed earlier has become final. Therefore, I do not find any justification to sustain the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Further, it is significant to note that the purpose of interlocutory order is to maintain the status-quo as it existed on the date of the suit. Therefore, I do not find any justification to sustain the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Further, it is significant to note that the purpose of interlocutory order is to maintain the status-quo as it existed on the date of the suit. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has fairly submitted that at no point of time, the 1st Petitioner-Samithi has interfered in regard to the performance of Pooja by the Respondent nor has made any attempt to enter the Temple and perform Pooja. He further submitted that the 1st Petitioner-Samithi has got no objection regarding performance of the Pooja of the Temple by the Respondent, but, inspite of that the Respondent has went on filing miscellaneous petitions one after the other before the Court below in order to drag on the proceedings. Having regard to the factual and legal position as stated above, I do not find any justification to entertain the impugned order passed by the Court below and the same is liable to be rejected. 6.1 For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.7.2002 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hospet, is hereby set aside. Parties to bear their respective costs.