UTTARADHIMATH Vs. RAGHAVENDRASWAMY MATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the Trial Court against the order dated 10-12-1993 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Koppal, in M.A. No. 8 of 1993 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 30-3-1993 passed by the Munsiff, Koppal, in O.S. No. 193 of 1992 allowing I.A. Nos. II and III filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) After hearing both sides, the revision petition is admitted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri H.B. Datar and the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri S.G. Sundaraswamy submitted that in view of the fact that the Aradhana is to take place on 1st, 2nd and 3rd December, 1994, the revision petition itself may be heard. In view of this submission made by the learned Counsel for both sides, I have heard this petition on merits.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the land called "Nava Vrindhavana Gaddi" bearing Sy.No. 192 situated at Anegundi village in Gangavathi Taluk. It also filed I.A. No. II for temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the performance of Aradhana of Sri H.H. Vageesha Teertharu to be held on the particular dates in April 1992 and also on future respective dates till the disposal of the suit. I.A. No. III was filed by the petitioner praying for temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from entering upon the land known as "Nava Vrindhavana Gaddi" and from obstructing or interfering in any manner with the peaceful performance of Aradhana of Sri H.H. Padamanabha Teertharu by the plaintiff on the particular dates mentioned in the I.A. in November, 1992 and also on future respective dates as contained in Panchanga of the relevant years till the disposal of the suit. After perusing the material placed before it and hearing both sides, the Munsiff, Koppal, to whom the case was transferred, allowed I.A. Nos. II and III issuing a temporary injunction against the respondent to restrain them from performing the annual Aradhana of Sri H.H. Vageesha Teertharu, Sri H.H. Padmanabha Teertharu, Sri H.H. Kavindra Teertharu in that particular year as well as on the dates of annual Aradhana of Sri H.H. Padmanabha Teertharu, Sri H.H. Vageesha Teertharu and Sri H.H. Kavindra Teertharu, in every year by the plaintiff, in the suit Nava Vrindhavana Gaddi bearing Sy. No. 192 of Anegundi village, till the disposal of the suit. The respondent was aggrieved by this order and hence it preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 1993 and this appeal came to be heared by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Koppal, and he allowed that Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Munsiff, Koppal, on I.A. Nos. II and III and directed both the petitioner and the respondent to perform Aradhanas of Sri H.H. Padamanabha Teertharu, Sri H.H. Vageesha Teertharu and Sri H.H. Kavindra Teertharu on the relevant dates in the manner indicated by him. The impunged order directs that the petitioner Mutt to perform the Aradhanas for the first day and upto 12 noon of the second day and the respondent Mutt to perform the Aradhanas of the said saints from 12-15 p.m. on the second day till the closure of the third day. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition.