T E VIJAYARAGHAVACHARI Vs. K SRINIVASARAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioners are defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.106 of 1993 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. The respondent/plaintiff is a devotee and honourary serivce holder of Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Temple, Kancheepuram whose Executive Trustee is the 6th defendant in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that during Brahmotsavam days, there is a custom long usage prevailing in the temple in connection with the performance of honour to idols of Alwars and Acharyas consecrated inside the temple. In the year 1988 one Seshadhri third defendant in the suit applied to the sixth defendant to have a Mandagapadi in the place called Sri Ahobila Mutt, wherein the idols of certain Acharyas belonging to Vadakalai sect, are consecrated. This was objected to by the member belonging to the Thenkalai sect, of Vaishanavites and so the third defendant filed an application before the second defendant the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. seeking permission to perform the Mandagapadi honours. That application was allowed by the second defendant in his order dated 10.10.1990. There after the first defendant the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. initiated suo moto revision in respect of the said order in S.M.R.No.8 of 1991. The plaintiff filed his objections before the Commissioner, However, the Commissioner passed order on 6.6.1990 in his proceedings No.67 of 1990 that the sixth defendant viz. the Executive Officer should honour the idols in Sri Ahobila Mutt at Sannadhi Street, Little Kancheepuram. It is not clear from the copy of the plaint provided in the typed set what is the exact order passed on 9.8.1991. However, on a reading of the entire plaint we are able to gather that the suit has been laid under Sec.70 of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 to set aside the orders passed by the first defendant on 9.8.1991 in S.M.R.No.8 of 1991. In the plaint the date 9.8.1991 is mentioned only in the cause of action paragraph which indicates that on 9.8.1991 the first defendant has passed some orders.

(2.) IT appears that during the pendency of the suit plaintiff filed I.A.No.690 of 1993 against defendants 1 and 6 alone seeking interim injunction against the sixth defendant from conferring honours to Sri Manavala Mamuni on the 3rd of Brahmot-savam festival of Sri Varadaraja Swamy Temple beginning from 1.6.1993. There was also an endeavour on the part of the plaintiff to get interim orders. In the meanwhile, defendants 4 and 5 came forward with I.ANo.689 of 1993 making the plaintiff as the respondent under O.1, Rule 10 and Scc.151, C.P.C., to get themselves impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in I.A.No.690 of 1993. The revision petitioners state in their affidavit in I.A.No.689 of 1993 that they are the disciples and devotees of Sri Manavala Mamuni and any injunction against the sixth defendant regarding the temple honour on the third day of Brahmotsavam festival as prayed for will directly affect them and hurt their sentiments and feelings in this respect. So they have to be impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in I.A.No.690 of 1993. That they have been impleaded as defendants 4 and 5 in the suit is significant.

(3.) ON enquiry learned Subordinate Judge has found that controversy in the suit relates to the plaintiff and H.R. & C.E. Board and there is no reason to implead defendants 4 and 5 as respondents in I.A.No.690 of 1993 and accordingly he dismissed that application without costs. Defendants 4 and 5 challenge this order in this revision petition.