JUDGMENT F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. This writ appeal has been filed by the third party to the writ petition. The challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge dated 29.1.2009 passed in W.P.(MD). No. 3468 of 2008. 2. The first respondent herein, filed the said writ petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 5 herein to implement the order dated 21.12.1974, in R.Dis.16371/70, passed by the second respondent, on the basis of his representation dated 20.3.2008 by fixing a time frame. 3. By the impugned order dated 29.1.2009 passed in W.P.(MD). No. 3468 of 2008, the learned Judge after taking note of earlier order dated 5.7.1977 in W.P.(MD). No. 1352 of 1975 and order dated 3.2.1993 in W.A. No. 111 of 1993 and after taking note of the pendency of the Crl.Rc. No. 689 of 2007, directed the respondents 2 to 5 herein to implement the order dated 21.12.1974 based on the representation of the first respondent without any further delay. The learned Judge also directed the respondents therein to comply with the directions within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant after leave of this Court, dated 11.2.2009 in M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2009 in W.A.(MD).Sr. No. 5646 of 2009, has come forward with this present appeal. 4. We heard Mr. V.Ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms.J.Padmavathy, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. K.M.Vijayakumar learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5. 5. We are of the considered opinion that there were certain other developments after the order of the second respondent dated 21.12.1974 as well as the order dated 5.7.1977 passed in W.P. No. 1352 of 1975 and the order dated 3.2.1993 passed in W.A. No. 111 of 1993, the consideration of which obliges this Court to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 6. To trace the past events after passing of the order dated 21.12.1974 as well as the order dated 5.7.1977 and 3.2.1993, in the writ petition and the writ appeal respectively, it is relevant to refer to the order dated 3.12.1992 passed in W.M.P. Nos. 12236 of 1989 and W.M.P. Nos. 6. To trace the past events after passing of the order dated 21.12.1974 as well as the order dated 5.7.1977 and 3.2.1993, in the writ petition and the writ appeal respectively, it is relevant to refer to the order dated 3.12.1992 passed in W.M.P. Nos. 12236 of 1989 and W.M.P. Nos. 12236 of 1989 and W.M.P. No. 17177 of 1991 in W.P. No. 9023 of 1989 which order came to be confirmed in W.A. No. 111 of 1993 dated 3.2.1993. The writ petition in W.P. No. 9023 of 1989 itself came to be disposed on 13.7.1998. The said writ petition was filed challenging an order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments dated 29.5.1989, wherein the fifth respondent herein was directed to function as Executive Officer in the Executive Office of the Arulmighu Kannimaramman Temple, Veerapur Village, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District and also to operate the second account in the said temple. In the order dated 3.12.1992 passed in the miscellaneous petitions, the interim stay of the operation of the order dated 29.5.1989 came to be vacated. The said order of the learned single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 111 of 1993. While passing the above said orders, the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench took note of the fact that challenge made to the earlier order of the second respondent dated 21.12.1974 was not acceded to by Court and thereby the said order became final and conclusive. 7. Be that as it may, the appellant herein along with one R.Poonalagesan filed a suit in O.S. No. 51 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Manapparai as against fifth respondent. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession, management and administration of the suit temple and other consequential activities. The said suit came to be filed, when the fifth respondent herein issued notice dated 11.2.1993 directing the first plaintiff and others to surrender possession and administration as well as all the documents relating to the temple. In the suit, the fifth respondent remained ex parte . The suit itself came to be decreed on 13.12.2000. It is relevant to note that the said decree has become final and conclusive, inasmuch as there was no challenge to it. In the suit, the fifth respondent remained ex parte . The suit itself came to be decreed on 13.12.2000. It is relevant to note that the said decree has become final and conclusive, inasmuch as there was no challenge to it. Subsequently, the fifth respondent filed an application under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai. In the said application, the fifth respondent prayed for a direction to the appellant and two others to hand over possession of Veerappur Sri Arulmigu Kannimaramman vahayara temple including records, accounts etc., and further suitable orders for the implementation of the orders of this Court. The said application was resisted by the appellant and others. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai passed orders in the said application on 17.7.2007 holding that though the order dated 21.12.1974 appointing the third respondent as Executive Officer is in force, the other ingredients of Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 not having been complied with, the prayer of the fifth respondent cannot be granted. So saying, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the fifth respondent. As against the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, the fifth respondent has preferred criminal revision in Crl.Rc. No. 689 of 2007 which is pending on the file of this Court. 8. The question for consideration is in the light of the above factors, subsequent to the passing of the order dated 21.12.1974, the prayer of the first respondent in the writ petition could have been countenanced and the direction issued by the learned single Judge can be allowed to operate. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having bestowed our serious consideration to the various material papers placed before us and to the contentions raised under Sections 45(1) and 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, we are of the considered opinion that the direction as ordered by the learned single Judge cannot be granted in the present juncture. We too find that neither the appellant nor any of his predecessors as hereditary trustees were able to successfully challenge the initial order of appointment of the fifth respondent as Executive Officer of Arulmighu Kannimaramman temple, as it is seen from the earlier order dated 5.7.1977 in W.P. No. 1352 of 1975 or while challenging the subsequent order dated 29.5.198For the function of the fifth respondent as Executive Officer, when we perused the order dated 21.12.1974 as well as the appendix annexed to it, we find that the hereditary trustees were not removed from their office of trusteeship. In fact in the said order it is mentioned as under; "The Commissioner further defines the power and duties of the Executive Officer and Hereditary Trustees as set out in the appendix to this order. "The Executive Officer and the Hereditary Trustees shall function as per the rules defining the powers and duties of the Executive Officer and Hereditary Trustees and the scheme settled in O.S. No.125 of 1945, Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. In case of conflict between the provisions contained in the rules defining the powers and duties of the Executive Officer and the Hereditary Trustees and the provisions contained in the scheme, the Executive Officer and the Hereditary Trustees shall follow the scheme provisions as far as they are consistent with the HR and CE Act and the rules framed thereunder." In the appendix it is again stated as under; Rule 1 :- The hereditary trustee shall be entitled to be in possession of all immovable properties of the institution. Rule 2: The Hereditary Trustee shall be entitled to the custody of all movables, livestock and grains, the jewels and valuables shall be in the joint custody in the manner laid down in the rules framed under Section 116 (2) (xii) and the Executive Officer shall be responsible for the entrustment of jewels and valuables, which are in daily use as well as those, which are not used daily to Office-holders, after taking proper acknowledgment and for providing facilities to the office-holders for keeping the jewels and valuables in safety and for observing the prescribed procedure after such entrustment. Rule 3:- The Executive Officer shall be the person entitled to receive all the income on cash and kind and all offerings. Rule 14: The Hereditary Trustee shall have power to sell perishables in such manner as he deems fit. Rule 3:- The Executive Officer shall be the person entitled to receive all the income on cash and kind and all offerings. Rule 14: The Hereditary Trustee shall have power to sell perishables in such manner as he deems fit. Sales of livestock, grains and any other property not required for the use of the Institution shall be decided upon only by the Hereditary Trustees and the conditions of leases of lands, rights etc shall be decided by the hereditary trustees as laid down under the rules provided under Section 116(2) (xiii) of the Act. Rule 17:- The Hereditary Trustees and the Executive Officer shall have power to operate on the bank account jointly, but the cheque book and the pass book shall remain in the custody of the Executive Officer. Rule 20:- If any doubt or difficulty arises either in the interpretation of these rules or the application thereof such doubts or difficulties shall be removed by the Commissioner and the order of the Commissioner in this behalf shall be final." 10. When the order dated 29.5.1989 came to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department directing the fifth respondent to operate the second account, the challenge made to the said order at the instance of the appellant was not successful. However, in pursuance of the said order, the fifth respondent issued a proceedings dated 11.2.1993 directing the appellant and the other hereditary trustees to surrender possession of various records. The appellant and one other trustee filed the suit in O.S. No. 51 of 1993 arraying the fifth respondent as the defendant. The suit was for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the fifth respondent remained ex parte and the suit itself came to be decreed on 13.12.2000. In the decree, the learned District Munsif, Manapparai, while granting the injunction, made it clear that any interference can be made only by taking recourse to Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It is not in dispute that the said decree continue to remain in force even as on date. Apparently, in compliance of the said decree, the fifth respondent appeared to have moved the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manappari by filing an application under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It is not in dispute that the said decree continue to remain in force even as on date. Apparently, in compliance of the said decree, the fifth respondent appeared to have moved the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manappari by filing an application under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In such circumstances, if the grievance of the first respondent, writ petitioner, that the appellant as well as other hereditary trustees are indulging in any malpractice or in not providing sufficient facilities in the temple and therefore the implementation of the order dated 21.12.1974 in its entirety is called for, such a prayer can be considered only in the light of the decree dated 13.12.2000 passed in O.S. No. 51 of 1993 which is in operation as per the orders passed in application filed under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, by order dated 17.7.2007. The correctness of the said order is pending consideration in Crl.Rc. No. 689 of 2007. Therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to express any opinion as regards the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manappari. But reading the decree dated 13.12.2000 and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mannapari dated 17.7.2007 together, as on date the authority of the fifth respondent in seeking to exercise his power based on the order dated 21.12.1974 should be in consonance with the terms contained in the above referred to civil Court decree, as well as the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manappari. It is for the fifth respondent to work out his remedy in the pending Crl.Rc. No. 689 of 2007. De hors the said proceedings, if any direction is issued to the fifth respondent that may result in abdication of power by the fifth respondent which would run counter to the civil Court decree as well as the statutory judicial order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai in the application filed under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, such a conflicting situation cannot be allowed to remain in pursuance of any orders passed by this Court in a writ petition. Whatever may be the grievance of the first respondent, writ petitioner, in regard to the management and administration of the temple or handling of day to day activities in the temple premises at the instance of the appellant or any other hereditary trustees, it is for the fifth respondent to work out the remedies in the pending criminal revision case in Crl.Rc. No. 689 of 2007. 11. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that the direction issued by the learned single Judge to the respondents 2 to 5 herein for implementation of the order dated 21.12.1974, cannot (sic) straight away be made as has been ordered and we are therefore constrained to interfere with the said order of the learned single Judge. If the first respondent, the writ petitioner, has got any other remedy in law either under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Endowments Act or in the Civil Court, it will be open to the first respondent to work out the same in the manner known to law. 12. In the light of the above conclusions, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 29.1.2009 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 3468 of 2008. The writ appeal is allowed. We make it clear that whatever stated in this order shall have no implication either in the pending Crl.Rc. No. 689 of 2007 or in any other proceedings that may be launched by the first respondent, the writ petitioner, before any other forum in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Appeal allowed.