Judgment :- 1. The present revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the First Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, in I.A. No: 2937 of 2002 in O.S. No: 668 of 2002 dated 312. 2002 in allowing the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff seeking for an injunction restraining the respondents / defendants or their agents or successor in office from initiating any action against the petitioner / plaintiff on the basis of the impugned report dated "Nil" by expelling the petitioner / plaintiff from the Ashram till the disposal of the suit and pass such other further orders in the circumstances of the case. 2. The revision petitioners are the respondents / defendants. For convenience sake the ranks of the parties before the lower Court are being used in this judgment also. 3. The brief particulars of the case of both the parties are as follows: "(a) The case of the petitioners is that they are the disciples and devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother and Sri Aurobindo Ashram is their home. Being disciples and devotees, they have been leading their life within the Ashram according to the teachings and principles of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. The Mother created a Trust known as Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, the first petitioner herein and the same was registered in the year 1964. The Trust is administered by the Board of Trustees and the petitioners 2 to 6 are the present Trustees. The trustees are falsely accusing, harassing and victimizing them in different ways including arbitrary and illegal expulsion from January 2001. An enquiry officer has been appointed in respect of various complaints given by them. Without giving sufficient opportunity, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, the enquiry report was submitted to the trustees. On the basis of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued and thereafter an expulsion order was passed by the petitioners. Thus challenging the enquiry report, the respondents have laid the suit for the relief set out earlier. (b) The respondents had put forth its case by denying the various allegations levelled against them by the petitioners. Further it has been set out that the enquiry was properly conducted and the report has been submitted by the enquiry officer. Thereafter, after giving a show cause notice an order of expulsion has been passed. (b) The respondents had put forth its case by denying the various allegations levelled against them by the petitioners. Further it has been set out that the enquiry was properly conducted and the report has been submitted by the enquiry officer. Thereafter, after giving a show cause notice an order of expulsion has been passed. The remedy, if any, available to the petitioner is before the High Court at whose instance the enquiry was conducted and report filed. It is respectfully submitted that this Honble Court has no jurisdiction to sit on judgment over the report of the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Honble High Court as the present suit amounts to appeal and the same is not maintainable. Therefore, it is prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to dismiss this petition with costs." 4. The lower Court after hearing both sides had come to the conclusion of granting temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit as asked for by the petitioner / plaintiff. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the lower Court, the respondent / defendant has preferred this revision. 5. Heard Mr. C.A. Diwakaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. K. Bijai Sundar, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners / respondents / defendants would submit in his argument that the plaintiff had filed the suit for a declaration that the report dated Nil submitted by the enquiry officer as perverse, biased and illegal and for restraining the defendants, their men, agents and successors in office from initiating any further action against the plaintiff based on the report dated Nil by the way of permanent injunction and to award costs. He would further submit that the lower Court was wrong in passing an order of injunction when the report was already pursued by the defendants against the plaintiff by removing her name from the prosperity list and her name was removed and the material benefits and facilities extended to her as an inmate of the Ashram were withdrawn on and from 16th December 2002 and she should vacate the premises allotted to her in Room No: 32, Block E, II floor, Amba Bhikshu House at No: 33, Dr. Ambedkar Street, Kurunjikuppam, Pondicherry – 12, on or before 31st December 2002; the injunction order was passed by the lower Court on 312. Ambedkar Street, Kurunjikuppam, Pondicherry – 12, on or before 31st December 2002; the injunction order was passed by the lower Court on 312. 2002 and it should have been only in respect of vacating from the premises alone and in other respects, the status quo prevailed on the said date should have been ordered to be maintained. He would further submit that the lower Court went ahead to order injunction against the respondents from initiating any action in pursuance of the said report by expelling the petitioner from the Ashram is not correct. He would further submit in his argument that the subsequent developments in respect of the position and status of the plaintiff should have also been considered as detailed in the order of this Court made in C.R.P. (P.D.) No: 3314 of 2007 dated 29.01.2008 and in the subsequent clarified order made therein on 04.08.2008 and those orders should have been moulded in such a way that there should not be any conflict in this Court passing order. He would submit that the said order of this Court had emanated in the aforesaid C.R.P. preferred against the order of lower appellate Court made in C.M.A. No: 35 of 2005 dated 30.01.2007, which was preferred against the order of the learned District Munsif, Puducherrry, made in I.A. No: 1500 of 2005 in O.S. No: 409 of 2005 dated 10.06.2005 in a case filed by the plaintiff herein along with her sisters to declare another impugned report dated 10.01.2005 submitted by the Enquiry Officer as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, perverse and not based on any material and violative of principles of natural justice and for a declaration that the expulsion of the plaintiffs from the said Ashram as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and to restrain the defendants by permanent injunction depriving their food, cloth and shelter and other necessities in pursuance of the said report till the disposal of the said suit. In the said injunction order passed against the defendant by both the Courts below, and in the said revision petition the plaintiff of this suit is one of the plaintiffs in that suit also, who was directed to stay outside the Ashram of their choice. In the said injunction order passed against the defendant by both the Courts below, and in the said revision petition the plaintiff of this suit is one of the plaintiffs in that suit also, who was directed to stay outside the Ashram of their choice. He therefore submit that the injunction order passed by the lower Court should not be a bar to the order passed by this Court in the said C.R.P. and therefore, the order of the lower Court is not sustainable. He would therefore request the Court that the order may be suitably interfered and modified and the revision petition may be allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would submit in his argument that the plaintiff has filed the suit questioning the report of the enquiry officer appointed by the Hon’ble High Court and the merits and de-merits of the case has to be gone into only in the trial and any pursuant action on the said impugned report taken by the defendants cannot be sustained since they were taken by the defendants only after the filing of the suit and the lower Court had considered the order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in C.R.P. (P.D.) No: 787 of 2002 dated 13.09.2002 and the liberty given by this Court for the plaintiff to question the report in the Court of law and the suit has been filed by her questioning the same and till the decision is reached in the suit, the plaintiff should not be deprived of the amenities and other facilities provided by the Ashram as a member of the prosperity of the Ashram. Apart from this he would submit that the C.R.P. (P.D.) No: 3314 of 2007 in which the Honble High Court passed orders on 29.01.2008 and on 04.08.2008 are in different perspective and the orders passed therein was not made in respect of this cause of action against the plaintiff herein and, therefore, the arguments advanced by the defendants will not sustain and no similar order need be passed in this case. He would therefore, support the order passed by the lower Court and the revision petition may be dismissed. 8. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 9. He would therefore, support the order passed by the lower Court and the revision petition may be dismissed. 8. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 9. There is no dispute in between the parties that an enquiry officer was appointed by this Court in C.R.P. (P.D.) No: 787 of 2002 dated 13.09.2002 for going into the allegations made against the plaintiff and accordingly one Mr. N.P.K. Menon, a retired District Judge, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer by this Court, had proceeded with the enquiry and had given his finding ended against the plaintiffs. The plaintiff had questioned the said report by the way of filing the suit and sought for a temporary injunction from in any way initiating action against the plaintiffs on the basis of the impugned report. The order passed by this Court in C.R.P. (P.D.) No: 3314 of 2007 on 29.01.2008 and on 04.08.2008, filed by the same defendants against an order passed in a different suit emanated in between the plaintiff and her sisters as plaintiffs and the revision petitioners herein as defendants. In the said suit, the present plaintiff and her sisters as plaintiffs have questioned the impugned report dated 10.01.2005 submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the defendant-Managing Trustee as perverse, not based on any evidence and against the principles of natural justice, biased, illegal and non est in the eye of law and also for a declaration that the expulsion of the plaintiffs (including the plaintiff herein) from the Ashram based upon the impugned report dated 10.01.2005 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of principles of natural justice and for consequent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents or successors in office from depriving and stopping the food, clothing and shelter and other necessities of the plaintiffs due to arbitrary and illegal act of expulsion by the defendants based on the said impugned report by the way of permanent injunction. In the said suit, temporary injunction was granted against the revision petitioners and appeal was preferred in C.M.A. No: 35 of 2008 against the said order and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court and the defendants have preferred the said revision. In the said suit, temporary injunction was granted against the revision petitioners and appeal was preferred in C.M.A. No: 35 of 2008 against the said order and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court and the defendants have preferred the said revision. This Court had considered the circumstances of the case to the effect that some serious and wild allegations levelled by the plaintiffs against certain inmates of the Ashram and safety of the plaintiffs in that suit was also considered by this Court and on consideration of the welfare of the plaintiffs in that suit and this Court had directed the plaintiffs in that suit (which includes the present plaintiff also) to stay outside from the premises of the Ashram in order to see the plaintiffs are safe. The relevant passage of the order passed by this Court in the said C.R.P. (P.D.) No: 3314 of 2007 dated 29.01.2008, would run as follows:- "In the place, where people all over the world are visiting to pay homage to The Mother, in order to get peace, certain inmates of the Ashram cannot indulge in certain activities which will destroy the peace of the inmates of the Ashram. The respondents are stated to be devotees of the Mother and their welfare has to be considered with utmost care. As I already said, since wild charges have been made by the respondents against the inmates, whether they would be allowed to reside in the Ashram till the disposal of the suit is the question that is posed for my consideration, especially when the trial is taken up, in the course of evidence, the allegations and counter allegations will be made against each other. At that point of time, it has to be seen whether it would be safe for the respondents to reside in the Ashram. Further more, the appellate Judge declined to allow the respondents to render service in the Ashram and the respondents have not challenged that portion of the order before this Court. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the following order shall meet the ends of justice:- .(i) The petitioners herein are bound to provide all the facilities, basic amenities, which they were enjoying hitherto to the respondents. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the following order shall meet the ends of justice:- .(i) The petitioners herein are bound to provide all the facilities, basic amenities, which they were enjoying hitherto to the respondents. .(ii) The first and second respondents shall intimate the petitioners the place of their choice to reside till the disposal of the suit within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by registered post with acknowledgement. (iii) On receipt of the same, the petitioners shall pay all charges for the boarding, food etc., to the Management of the Boarding. .(iv) The petitioners shall also pay reasonable amount to the respondents for their clothing and for other basic amenities. .(v) The above direction shall be carried out by the petitioners till the disposal of the suit in one way or other." The said order was clarified on 04.08.2008, which would go to show that the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2008 in the said C.R.P. was reiterated and was clarified further. The relevant passage of the later order would run as follows:- "7. While disposing of the representation on 29.01.2008, I have taken into consideration that it may not be in the interest of the respondents, to reside in the Ashram, since already a complaint had been made against the inmates of the Ashram. Considering the said fact in mind, I have directed them to reside elsewhere and the petitioners have been directed to provide monetary help for their stay outside. Further the management have been directed to provide amount not only for boarding, but also for food, clothing and for other basic amenities. As stated already, considering the safety of the respondents, it would be more appropriate to direct them to choose a place which is not owned by the Ashram and they shall do so by intimating the petitioners of their choice of residence till the disposal of the suit within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by registered post with acknowledgement. On receipt of the same, the petitioners shall pay all the charges such as boarding, food, clothing, etc.,. On receipt of the same, the petitioners shall pay all the charges such as boarding, food, clothing, etc.,. I hope that alteast by now, the respondents will forthwith decide the place of their choice and intimate the same to the petitioners within the time stipulated by this Court without insisting for residence in the Ashram or the property owned by the Ashram and also without insisting the food in the same Ashram. " 10. In the aforesaid changed circumstance, the respondent / petitioner / plaintiff, as one of the plaintiffs in that suit and proceedings, is also bound by the aforesaid order of this Court and according to the said orders, the plaintiffs in that suit, including the plaintiff herein, are directed to stay outside with all facilities and amenities as provided in the Ashram and the cost of such stay outside the Ashram are to be borne by the revision petitioners / respondents / defendants. Therefore, if the order of injunction passed by the lower Court is kept in force, the aforesaid orders of this Court passed in C.R.P. No: 3314 of 2007 cannot be made operative against the respondent / plaintiff. Since the plaintiff herein has not agitated against the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No: 3314 of 2007 and the order of this Court shall continue to prevail over the injunction order passed by the lower Court. Therefore, the injunction order passed by the lower Court is set aside and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the following order shall meet the ends of justice:- "The petitioners herein are bound to provide all the facilities and basic amenities which she was enjoying hitherto in the Ashram in a place where she had chosen to reside outside the Ashram as per the direction of this Court in C.R.P. (P.D.) No: 3314 of 2007 and shall pay all the charges for boarding, food, etc. to the management of the Boarding for the stay of the respondent / petitioner / plaintiff and shall also pay a reasonable amount to the respondent / petitioner / plaintiff in respect of her clothing and other basic amenities till the disposal of this suit in one way or the other." The revision petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.