S PURUSHOTHAM Vs. REV WILLIAM MOSSESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri jayakumar s. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri g. r. Gurumath for respondent 4; Sri m. v. Sheshachala for respondent 5; Sri k. Krishnaswamy for respondent 6 and Sri padmanabha mahale, senior counsel for Sri m. j. Yogendra vikram, Advocate for respondent 7.

(2.) AFTER hearing the arguments and also on perusal of the impugned Order, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the lower appellate court rejecting la. No. Iii filed under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for temporary injunction calls for interference.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the case which are not in dispute are that the petitioner herein filed o. s. No. 16 of 1999 on the file of the vacation judge which was subsequently renumbered as 252 of 1999 on the file of the civil judge (junior division), bellary, for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from discharging the duties of bishop along with an application under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. On 12-5-1999, the learned trial judge was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo. On 22-6-1999 in spite of the order to maintain status quo the 5th respondent was selected by the syndicate in chennai as the bishop of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner filed la. No. Ii under order 39, Rule 2-a to punish the respondents for violation of the interim order. The respondents filed objections and the court also held an enquiry and passed an order on 12-4-2000 the operative portion of which reads thus: