LAWS(KAR)-2023-4-240

ANAND Vs. GADAG VEERANARAYANA DEV

Decided On April 10, 2023
ANAND Appellant
V/S
Gadag Veeranarayana Dev Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.14/1997 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC I, Gadag, and the petitioners have impugned the order dtd. 11/1/2019 in R.A.No.31/2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, which is filed against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.14/1997. The other two suits in O.S.No.361/1997 and O.S.No.36/2002 are clubbed with the suit in O.S.No.14/1997. The petitioners, with the decree of their suit in O.S.No.14/1997, are granted permanent injunction restraining the respondent concerned from interfering with their rights to officiate as administrators and to perform religious duties. The appellate Court by the impugned order has stayed the operation of the aforesaid decree, and the appellate court's impugned order has been in force for almost three years.

(2.) Sri. Sunil S. Desai, the learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for some time on the merits emphasizes that the petitioner's present grievance is because the respondents are taking advantage of the impugned order in collecting huge funds without rendering accounts when queried, Sri. Sunil S. Desai submits that the petition could be disposed of directing the appellate Court to decide the appeal/s on merits within a time line and reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in the light of their aforesaid grievance.

(3.) On a careful consideration of the material on record, including assertion that the petitioners had the advantage of injunction granted by this Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition stands disposed of calling upon the appellate Court to decide on the merits of the appeal/s expeditiously directing the parties to cooperate with the appellate Court in such expeditious disposal. The appellate Court shall endeavour dispose of this appeal/s within an outer limit of six months unless an enquiry is insisted upon by the petitioners on the ground that the respondents have to render accounts.