Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1055 (MAD)

Karthick @ Karthikeyan v. S. Ponnupandian

2025-02-20

R.VIJAYAKUMAR

body2025
ORDER : The 19 th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.196 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Melur is the revision petitioner. (A)Factual Matrix: 2.The above said suit has been filed under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of HR & CE Department confirming the scheme framed by the Joint Commissioner. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Endowment Department officials from in any way implementing the scheme order of the Joint Commissioner. The plaintiff has also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the officials of the Endowment Department from in any way interfering with the administration and management of the suit temple by the hereditary trustees cum poojaries. 3.Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any way implementing their orders passed in A.P.Nos.81, 82 and 83 of 2018 dated 23.02.2020 and O.A.No.22 of 2011 and suo moto O.A.No.21 of 2016 dated 11.10.2018 by framing scheme for the suit temple and interfere with the management of the temple by the hereditary trustees till the disposal of the suit. 4.The trial Court had granted an exparte ad-interim injunction on 28.07.2023 on the ground that if the scheme order of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department is implemented, it will affect the management of the temple, worship and the income of the temple. If the interim order is not granted, it will be put to irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiff than that of the respondents. 5.On the above said observations, an order of interim injunction has been granted restraining the private and official respondents from implementing the order passed by HR & CE Commissioner confirming the order of the Joint Commissioner wherein a scheme framing for temple. This exparte ad-interim injunction is under challenge in the present civil revision petition. (B) Submissions of the counsels: 6.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the present suit is a statutory suit under Section 70 of the HR & CE Act. As per Section 70(1)(ii), the civil Court has no power to stay the order of the Commissioner pending disposal of the suit. However, by couching the prayer as an application for interim injunction, the present ad-interim exparte injunction has been granted. As per Section 70(1)(ii), the civil Court has no power to stay the order of the Commissioner pending disposal of the suit. However, by couching the prayer as an application for interim injunction, the present ad-interim exparte injunction has been granted. He had further contended that when the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant any interim stay with regard to the implementation of the scheme, an order of interim injunction cannot be granted restraining the officials from implementing the scheme. The order of exparte injunction having been passed without jurisdiction, the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, without filing any vacant injunction application or filing an appeal. 7.Per contra, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 8, 10, 30 and 31 and Ms.J.Anandhavalli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4, 6, 7, 29 and 33 had contended that the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not maintainable, in view of the fact that only an order of exparte interim injunction has been granted. The revision petitioner can very well file an application to vacate the interim order or file an appeal before the appropriate appellate Court. Since effective alternative remedy is available, the present revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. 8.It is further contended that the Secretary to Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.217, Tourism, Culture and Charitable (ANI3-1) Department, dated 01.07.2024 removing all the hereditary trustees. The said order was put to challenge by three trustees in CMA(MD).Nos.1240 & 1241 of 2024. This Court was pleased to grant interim stay on 23.09.2024. The other four trustees have filed CMA(MD).Nos.1240, 1241, 1038, 1039, 1040 & 1041 of 2024 challenging the said Government Order. 9.This Court by an order dated 25.10.2024 had refused to grant interim order and observed that the committee consisting of 5 persons appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 29.01.2020 in C.A.No.803 of 2023 would continue to manage the temple and trust pending disposal of the above appeal. 10.The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that the order of this Court dated 25.10.2024 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.28715-28716 of 2024. 10.The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that the order of this Court dated 25.10.2024 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.28715-28716 of 2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 10.02.2025 was pleased to set aside the order of this Court dated 25.10.2024 insofar as the petitioners in SLP are concerned. Only in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim injunction order passed by the trial Court has to be considered. 11.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, relying upon Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , had contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant an order of interim stay of the operation of the scheme order passed by the Commissioner of HR & CE Department. Therefore, the trial Court was not right in granting an order of interim injunction restraining the official respondents from implementing the scheme order. 12.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. (C).Discussion: 13.A perusal of the plaint prayer in O.S.No.196 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Melur reveals that the said suit has been filed under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department confirming the scheme order of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department(Administration) Madurai. 14.As per Section 70(1)(ii) of the said Act, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant interim stay of the operation of the scheme order passed by the Commissioner. In the present case, the plaintiff had prayed for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from implementing the scheme order. Therefore, it is clear that in order to circumvent the bar under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , the prayer for interim injunction has been sought for. The trial Court has also proceeded to grant an exparte ad-interim injunction which has resulted in effectively staying the implementation of the scheme order for which the civil Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Since the order of exparte interim injunction having been granted without any jurisdiction and in clear violation of the statutory provision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. Since the order of exparte interim injunction having been granted without any jurisdiction and in clear violation of the statutory provision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 15.The civil Court has proceeded to grant interim injunction in violation of the statutory provision and therefore, the order dated 28.07.2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2023 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law. 16.As far as the administration of the temple is concerned, in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C).Nos.28715-28716 of 2024 dated 10.02.2025, stay order of this Court dated 23.09.2024 in CMP(MD).Nos.13016 & 13017 of 2024 in CMA(MD).Nos. 1240 & 1241 of 2024 gets revived. The order of this Court dated 14.08.2024 in CMP(MD).Nos.10895, 10899, 10900 and 10903 of 2024 in CMA(MD).Nos.1038, 1039, 1040 & 1041 of 2024 also gets revived. In the upshot, the five persons appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order dated 29.01.2020 in C.A No.803 of 2020 would continue to manage the temple and the trust along with the three trustees who are appellants in CMA(MD).Nos.1240 & 1241 of 2024. 17.This Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with the above said observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.