Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On 19-8-1997,1.A. No. 9 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. C.P.C. was filed by defendant-1 also seeking an order of temporary injunction against plaintiffs restraining them from interfering with the administration and management of defendant-Trust, etc.

7. The learned trial Judge disposed of both plaintiffs' I.A. No. 1 and defendants-1's I.A. No. 9 by his considered common order dated 5-8-1999 by which I.A. No. 1 was allowed in part directing defendant-Trust or anybody on its behalf not to interfere with the plaintiffs' function as Paricharakas stated in para 4 of the plaint, and allowing defendant's I.A. No. 9 against plaintiffs restraining them from Interfering with the administration of the said Veeranarayana Temple. The trial Court's order allowing plaintiffs' I.A. No. 1 in part permitting them to function as Paricharakas was challenged by defendant-1 before the lower appellate Court in M.A. No. 17/1999. Similarly, the plaintiffs, aggrieved by the trial Court's order rejecting their prayer in I.A. No. 1 in respect of their claim to function as Parupatyagar of the said temple, also filed their appeal in M.A. No. 21/1999 against the same in the lower appellate Court. They also preferred an appeal in the Court below in M.A. No. 20/1999 against the trial Court's order passed allowing defendant's I.A. No. 9 granting temporary injunction against them. All the said three appeals viz., M.A. Nos. 17/ 1999, 21/1999 and 20/1999, came to be disposed of by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court by his common judgment dated 23-11-1999, whereby plaintiffs' M.A. Nos. 20/1999 and 21/1999 were dismissed and defendant-1's M.A. No. 17/1999 was allowed vacating the temporary injunction partly granted by the trial Court In plaintiffs' favour under Its order dated 5-8-1999. Aggrieved by that judgment dated 23-11-1999 of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiffs have filed their present respective C.R.P. Nos. 3973/1999, 3981/1999 and 3982/ 1999 questioning its legality and correctness.

26. Mr. Vijayashankar, learned counsel for D-1 Trust, on the other hand, vehemently canvassed his arguments in support of the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court by which D-1's I.A. No. 9 for injunction against plaintiffs has been allowed, and plaintiffs' I.A. No. 1 for temporary injunction against defendants is rejected. The first contention highlighted by Mr. Vijayashankar was that it being an undisputed position that as on the date of the present suit i.e., 6-1-1997, the plaintiffs were not acting as Parupatyagar and Paricharakas in presentii and, therefore, any temporary injunction as prayed by them in I.A. No. 1, if granted, will have the effect of reinstating them to the said offices after they have been terminated by D-1's Trust Committee by its resolution dated 28-9-1995 followed by its termination notices dated 13-10-1995, which were admittedly served on them on 17-10-1995 (vide paragraph 18 of the plaint), and such ad interim mandatory injunction normally cannot be done. Support for this proposition was sought to be drawn by Mr. Vijayashankar from the authorities (Nandan Pictures Ltd. v. Art Pictures Ltd.); 1996 AIHC 5609 -- Head Notes (B) and (C) (Dr. Ganapathi Narayan v. Shivaram Narayan Bhat); and (Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association). As indicated at paragraph 19 hereinabove, this contention for defendants had been raised before the Court below also and it had been accepted by it. Mr. C.R. Goulay, learned counsel for plaintiffs, seriously refuted this contention canvassed for defendants urging that the plaintiffs' case in this regard has been misconceived by the Court below.

33. The material points which, therefore, arise for my determination are :

1. Whether the impugned order rejecting plaintiffs' I.A. No. 1 declining to grant temporary injunction as prayed therein is sustainable in law?

2. Whether the impugned order of the Court below affirming the trial Court's order on D-1's I.A. 9 made allowing the same and granting temporary Injunction against plaintiffs as prayed therein is a valid and sustainable order in law?

34. Before proceeding to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties, this Court has to keep in view the scope of and the limitation on its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. The Privy Council in N. S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras (1949) 76 Ind App 67 : (AIR 1949 PC 156) laid down :

"53....... Since on the merits the trial Court has held that the deft-1/trust has made-out a prima-facie case for grant of temporary Injunction & since such a finding does not suffer from any infirmity, I do not feel it necessary at this stage to go into the aspect whether the order passed by the trial Court is U/O. 39 R-1 & 2 of CPC, or under Section 151 of CPC."

56. As already stated, I.A. No. 9 was filed for D-1 in the trial Court on 19-8-1998 for an order of temporary injunction against plaintiffs and their men and servants "from interfering in the administration of Sri Veeranarayana Temple of Gadag by defendants' Trust in any manner till the disposal of the suit", in the ends of justice and equity. The case in support of this prayer pleaded for D-1 is to be found in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the supporting affidavit of the Chairman of D-1 's Trust. The sum and substance of the allegations made against plaintiffs in the said affidavit seeking injunction against them is that the latter had filed the said O.S. No. 440/1995 against its trustees to restrain them from conducting the Deepotsava in the temple on a particular day; and that the present suit is filed by them after their removal from the office of Parupatyagar and Paricharakas, and that they (plaintiffs) had been insistingly performing the said duties. All other allegations against them in the said affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 9 are entirely vague and baseless. No fault could be found with the plaintiffs by D-1's Panch Committee for plaintiffs filing the O.S. No. 440/1995 against D-1's Committee for permanent injunction for preventing it and its men from conducting the function of Lakshadeepotsava in the temple on 17-11-1995 or any other day on the ground that it was their exclusive right as Parupatyagar and Paricharakas of the D-1 temple to conduct the said function, as that was the admitted case of the then Panch Committee of D-1 itself in its said L.C, Suit No. 15/1941 vide paragraph 16 hereinabove. Besides, the plaintiffs' insistence to act as Parupatyagar and Paricharakas of the said temple in assertion of their right to so act cannot be stated as an act of interference with the administration of D-1's Panch Committee or Trust Committee in view of my conclusions arrived at hereinabove. Therefore, there does not exist any ground whatever for D-1 to file its I.A. No. 9 seeking temporary Injunction against plaintiffs. Nonetheless, as is rightly submitted by Sri R. C. Goulay, learned counsel for plaintiffs, I.A. No. 9 filed for D-1 in plaintiffs' suit on 19-8-1998 without filing the same in D-1's pending O.S. No. 361/1997 filed for permanent injunction against them is a vexatious application, appears highly probable. Therefore, by any yardstick, I find that the impugned orders on I.A. No. 9 are passed by both the Courts below in illegal exercise of their discretion and, therefore, those orders are liable to be upset by allowing C.R.P. No. 3981/1999.