Karnataka High Court
Shri Uttaradi Mutt vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2023
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB
WA No. 100390 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100390 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100391 OF 2023
IN W.A. NO.100390 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HOLY PONTIFF,
JAGADISH T R SHRI SHRI 1008 SHRI SATYATMA TIRTHA SWAMIJI,
HIGH COURT THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER,
OF
KARNATAKA R/O. SHRI UTTARADI MUTT,
2023.09.05
12:43:29 +0530 BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH S.RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB
WA No. 100390 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GANGAVATHI TALUK, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEGUNDI, TALUKA GANGAVATHI,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL.
5. SHRI. NANJANGUDA RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
THROUGH ITS PONTIFF
MANTRALAYA, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.PHANIRAJ
KASHYAP, ADVOCATE FOR R5
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, ADDL. GOVT. ADV., &
SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO, CALL
FOR RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED
05/07/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.103982/2023 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF THE RELIEF
SOUGHT FOR BY THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, SO FAR AS
APPELLANT IS CONCERN AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN W.A.NO.100391 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. UTTARADI MUTT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HOLY PONTIFF,
SHRI SHRI 1008 SHRI SATYATMA TIRTHA SWAMIJI,
THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER,
R/O. SHRI UTTARADIMUTT,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH S.RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB
WA No. 100390 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MINISTRY OF REVENUE,
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR GANGAVATHI,
O/F PAMPA NAGAR, KOPPAL,
STATE HIGHWAY KANAKAGIRI GANGAVATHI,
MUNIRABAD ROAD, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583227.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
B.T.PATIL NAGAR, ASHOK CIRCLE,
KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
4. SHRI. RAGHAVENDRASWAMI MUTT
REPTD BY HIS HOLINESS SRI.
SUBUDHENDRATHEERATHARU,
BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY,
SRI.R.K.VADEENDRA,
S/O R.KRISHNACHAR
NO.524, 5TH BLOCK, 11 MAIN,
45 CROSS, JAYANAGAR,
BENGULURU-560041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.PHANIRAJ
KASHYAP, ADV. FOR R4;
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, ADDL. GOVT. ADV., &
SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, CALL
FOR RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED
05/07/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.103994/2023 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN SO FAR AS APPELLANT IS
CONCERN AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB
WA No. 100390 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Both these intra-court appeals arise out of the impugned orders dated 05.07.2023 passed in W.P. No.103982/2023 and W.P. No.103994/2023, whereby both the petitions filed by the appellants herein and respondent No.5 herein were disposed of by the learned Single Judge.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that both the appellant-Mutt and respondent No.5-Mutt claim right over the Holy Moola Brindavana in question situated at Sy. No.192 of Anegundi, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. According to the appellants, the said Brindavana is that of Sri. Raghuvarya Teertha; while according to respondent No.5, the said Brindavana is that of Sri. Jayatheertharu. Further, both the appellant and respondent No.5 contend that they are entitled to independently and exclusively perform Aradhana, Mahimotsava, Pooja, religious activities, rituals, prayers, -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 etc. in respect of the aforesaid Brindavan without any interference or impediment from the other side.
3. The material on record discloses that the appellant filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking permission to perform Mahimotsava of Sri. Raghuvarya Teertha from 4th July to 10th July 2023. Similarly, respondent No.5 filed an application seeking permission to perform annual Aradhana of Sri. Jayatheertharu from 6th July to 8th July 2023. The applications of both the appellant and respondent No.5 having been rejected, both of them approached this Court in the instant writ petitions. While W.P. No.103982/2023 was preferred by the appellant herein, W.P. No.103994/2023 was preferred by respondent No.5 herein. Both the petitions having been contested by both sides, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order by issuing the following directions:
" (i) The writ petitions are allowed in part with following direction:-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Tahashildar vide Annexure- is quashed.
(iii) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.103982/2023 namely Shree Uttaradi Mutt shall be entitled to celebrate Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 4th July to 7th July, 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka-Gangavati, District-Koppal.
(iv) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.103994/2023 namely Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt shall be entitled to perform Aradhana of Shree Jayateertharu for a period from 8th July to 10th July 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka-Gangavati, District-Koppal.
(v) The respondent/State shall provide suitable Police assistance and protection for the purpose of maintaining public peace, morality, tranquility and would be at liberty to impose the suitable orders to maintain the public peace and tranquility or discipline including issuance of an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C during the said period mentioned hereinabove.
(vi) It is made clear that this Court has not touched upon the merits and demerits of the case, existence or otherwise of either Shree Raghuvarya Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu in Navabrindavana Gaddi which is being -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 agitated before the RSA Court as disputed question of fact and law are involved.
(vii) It is also made clear by virtue of this Court granting reliefs to both parties, this order would not in any way create a precedent for the litigations if any arise between the parties as the same will have to be adverted in the RSA proceedings, wherein the larger issue between the parties are pending consideration.
(viii) The directions issued to the respondent/State shall be followed in stricto sensu, without any violation and breach. Proper protection shall be given to both parties devotees, followers for the relevant dates mentioned hereinabove, failing which, authorities will face serious repercussion from this Court."
4. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge having been assailed before this Court in the present appeals, on 07.07.2023, this Court passed the following interim order:
ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.A.No.No.100390/2023 and for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.No.100391/2023.-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 Learned counsel Sri Phaniraj Kashyap having filed caveat, accepts notice for respondent No.5 in W.A.No.No.100390/2023 and for respondent No.4 in W.A.NoNo.100391/2023.ORDER ON I.A.No.4/2023
Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil along with Sri Satish S. Raichur, learned counsel for appellant in both the appeals and learned Senior Counsel Sri S.P. Shankar for Sri Phaniraj Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.A.No.100390/2023 and respondent No5 in W.A.No.100391/2023.
These writ appeals are directed against the learned Single Judge's order dated 05.07.2023 in W.P.No.No.103982/2023 and W.P.No.No.103944/2023.
The appellant has sought for stay of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.07.2023, wherein the learned Single Judge passed the following order:
(i) The writ petitions are allowed in part with following directions:
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Tahashildar vide Annexure- is quashed.
(iii) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.103982/2023 namely Shree Uttaradi Mutt shall -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 be entitled to celebrate Shree Raghuvarya Teerthara Mahimotsava from 4th July to 7th July, 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka-Gangavati, District-
Koppal.
(iv) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.103994/2023 namely Shree Raghavendraswamy Mutt shall be entitled to perform Aradhana of Shree Jayateertharu for a period from 8th July to 10th July 2023 (both days inclusive) at the Navabrindavana Gaddi bearing Sy.No.192 of Anegundi, Taluka- Gangavati, District-Koppal.
(v) The respondent/State shall provide suitable Police assistance and protection for the purpose of maintaining public peace, morality, tranquility and would be at liberty to impose the suitable orders to maintain the public peace and tranquility or discipline including issuance of an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C during the said period mentioned hereinabove.
(vi) It is made clear that this Court has not touched upon the merits and demerits of the case, existence or otherwise of either Shree Raghuvarya Teertharu or Shri Jayateertharu in Navabrindavana Gaddi which is being agitated before the RSA Court as disputed question of fact and law are involved.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023
(vii) It is also made clear by virtue of this Court granting reliefs to both parties, this order would not in any way create a precedent for the litigations if any arise between the parties as the same will have to be adverted in the RSA proceedings, wherein the larger issue between the parties are pending consideration.
(viii) The directions issued to the respondent/State shall be followed in stricto sensu, without any violation and breach. Proper protection shall be given to both parties devotees, followers for the relevant dates mentioned hereinabove, failing which, authorities will face serious repercussion from this Court.
Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil would submit that fifth respondent has no right to perform Aradhana of Sri Jayatheertharu at Navabrindavana Gaddi at Anegundi. He would submit that at no point of time, prior to 2022, fifth respondent performed Aradhana of Sri Jayatheertharu. It is the case of the appellants that it is the samadhi of Raghuvaryatheertharu and all along the appellant-mutt has performed Mahimotsava. The appellants claim that it is the Brindavana of Sri Raghuvaryatheertharu whereas respondent No.5 claims that it is the Brindavana of Sri Jayathreertharu. Learned
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 Senior counsel would submit that permitting the fifth respondent to perform Aradhana of Jayatheertharu would amount to creating a right in favour of respondent No.5 and it would amount to conferring the right to a person who has no right or interest to perform Aradhana of Jayathreertharu at Navabrindavana Gaddi. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that on earlier occasion, permission was sought for police protection for fifth respondent which was rejected and the same was the subject matter of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.103982/2023 and W.P.No.103994/2023. This Court by order dated 05.07.2023 directed the Assistant Commissioner to provide suitable protection for maintenance of public peace and tranquility and the petitioner-appellant to conduct rituals only with regard to conduct of Aradhana of Raghuvaryatheertharu. On that background, learned Senior Counsel would pray for stay of operative portion of the order by which the respondent No.5 is permitted to perform Aradhana of Jayatheertharu at Navabrindavana Gaddi from 08th July 2023 to 10th July 2023.
Per contra, leaned Senior Counsel Sri S.P. Shankar would submit that fifth respondent is performing Aradhana of Jayatheertharu for last several years and he submits that as directed by the learned Single Judge, appellants
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 have already commenced Mahimotsava of Raghuvaryatheertharu from 04th July 2023 to 07th July 2023 from tomorrow onwards i.e., 08th July 2023 to 10th July 2023, fifth respondent is permitted to perform Aradhana of Jayatheertharu.
Admittedly, both the appellant and fifth respondent made an application to Tahasildar seeking permission to perform Mahimotsava of Raghuvaryatheerathu and Aradhana of Jayatheertharu respectively. The Tahasildar by endorsement dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure-A) rejected the request of both the appellant and respondent No.5 for performance of Mahimotsava as well as Aradhana which led both the appellant and fifth respondent to approach this Court in separate writ petitions.
At this stage, this court is concerned with direction No.3 and 4 issued by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge without going into the merit or otherwise of the case of the appellant and fifth respondent, permitted the appellant to perform Raghuvaryatheertharu mahimotsava from 04th July 2023 to 7th July 2023 at Navabrindavana Gaddi and permitted the fifth respondent to perform Aradhana of Jayatheertharu from 08.07.2023 to 10.07.2023 at Navabrindavana Gaddi. It is the case of
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 the appellant that fifth respondent has no right to perform Aradhana of Jayatheertharu at Navabrindavana Gaddi as the respondent No.5 has admitted in other proceedings that it is the Brindavana of Sri Raghuvaryatheertharu. Whether it is the Brindavana of Raghuvaryatheertharu or it is the Brindavana of Sri Jayatheertharu, is the question which is raised in these appeals. Since the Mahimotsava of Raghuvaryatheertharu is already commenced and the learned Single Judge has permitted the fifth respondent to perform Aradhana of Jayatheertharu from 08.07.2023 to 10.07.2023, at this stage, it may not be appropriate for this Court to stay the order of the learned single judge. As the Mahimotsava and Aradhana have already commenced, passing of any interim order should not lead to breach of public peace. However performing Aradhana of Jayatheertharu would not confer any right on the fifth respondent or fifth respondent can take advantage of the same in any other proceedings or in the present proceedings.
The state authorities shall provide necessary protection to both the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to perform their respective Mahimotsava and Aradhana and they shall see that public peace is maintained and they are at liberty to impose such other conditions.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 This court has recorded the above finding only for consideration of interim prayer in the pending appeals. The parties to the proceedings shall not assert or shall not construe that the a finding is recorded and a right has been created in their favour by virtue of the present interim order. This court is conscious of the fact that if the interim order as prayed is granted, it would create chaos in the mind of innocent devotees who are willing to participate in ensuing Aradhana of Sri Jayatheertharu which is scheduled to be held from 08.07.2023 to 10.07.2023. Hence, we are not inclined to stop the performance of scheduled Aradhana.
Call these matters after four weeks."
5. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application
- I.A. No.5/2023 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission to produce additional documents/evidence in support of their claim in the present appeals. Though objections to I.A. No.5/2023 are not filed in writing by the respondent No.5, they vehemently oppose the said application and submit that no valid and sufficient ground is made out to allow the said application.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023
6. Heard Sri. Ameetkumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish S Raichur, Advocate, for the appellants; Sri. K.Suman, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Phaniraj Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.5; and Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Perused the material on record.
7. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the subject matter of R.S.A. No.100446/2015 does not involve the rights of the appellant to perform the religious activities at the Brindavana in question which is that of Sri. Raghuvarya Theertharu and consequently, necessary permission is to be granted in favour of the appellant to perform all religious activities on all occasions at the said Brindavana. It is also submitted that despite the appellant producing sufficient evidence to establish not only its right to perform all religious activities on all occasions in the said
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 Brindavan coupled with the fact that the said right of the appellant has been upheld and has never been disputed by respondent No.5 who has, in fact, admitted to the same, in all earlier proceedings, records, documents etc., the learned Single Judge committed an error in not upholding the claim of the appellant to perform all religious activities on all occasions pertaining to the said Brindavana in question of Sri. Raghuvarya Theertharu and consequently the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5, apart from submitting that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct and proper, also submits that respondent No.5 has disputed and denied the various claims and contentions urged by the appellant as regards their right to perform religious activities at the said Brindaavan which in fact belongs Sri. Jayatheertharu. It is also submitted that the writ petition itself was not maintainable since there were several
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 contentious issues and complex/complicated questions of fact and law which were incapable of being adjudicated in the petition. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 that while exercising its power under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties in respect of the Brindavana in question. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.
9. After having heard the learned Senior Counsel on both side, the following points would arise for consideration in these appeals:
I. Whether the appellant has made out valid and sufficient ground to allow I.A. No.5/2023 filed by it for permission to adduce additional evidence?
II. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct and proper?
POINT NO.I
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023
10. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the dispute between the parties revolves around their alleged right to perform all religious activities on all occasions at the Brindavana in question. It is specifically contended by the appellant that the said Brindavana belongs to Sri. Raghuvarya Theertaru, over which the appellant alone has exclusive right and is entitled to perform all religious activities to the exclusion of everyone else including respondent No.5. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of respondent No.5 that the said Brindavana belongs to Sri. Jayatheertaru and it is only respondent No.5 who is entitled to perform all religious activities at the said Brindavana. In this context, a perusal of the additional documents sought to be produced by the appellant will clearly indicate that the same are relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the aforesaid issue which arises between the parties. It is also significant to state that while opposing I.A. No.5/2023, it was submitted on behalf of respondent No.5 that, apart from opposing the said additional documents, respondent No.5
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 would also file additional documents in support of its claim. Under these circumstances, since the additional documents produced along with I.A. No.5/2023 by the appellant and additional documents sought to be produced by respondent No.5 were not available before the learned Single Judge, it would be necessary to provide an opportunity to both sides to produce their respective additional documents, I am of the view that I.A. No.5/2023 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I.A. No.5/2023 is allowed. The documents produced by the appellant along with the application are received on record. Point No.I is answered accordingly. POINT NO.II
11. After answering Point No.I in the affirmative and permitting the appellant to produce the additional documents, in the light of the specific submission made by respondent No.5 that they not only oppose all the claims/contentions of the appellant including the additional documents but that respondent No.5 would also produce additional documents in support of their claims/contentions
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 and since the various contentions of both sides have not been adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, it would be just and appropriate to set- aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by leaving open all contentions of all parties on all aspects of the matter.
12. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) Both the writ appeals in WA No.100390/2023 and WA No.100391/2023 are hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in
W.P. No.103982/2023 C/w W.P.
No.103994/2023 is hereby set-aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as respondent No.5 to produce additional documents in support of their respective claims
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9848-DB WA No. 100390 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100391 of 2023 including additional documents produced by the appellant along with I.A. No.5/2023.
v) Liberty is also reserved to the parties to file objections, additional pleadings, counter affidavits etc., in support of their respective claims.
vi) The parties are also at liberty to file interlocutory application(s) in the Writ Petition and seek suitable reliefs and also request the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter.
vii) All rival contention between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the several contentions noted above are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd JUDGE Sd JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80