(1.) The decree-holders are the appellants. They obtained a decree enjoining the defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (some of the judgment-debtors) by an injunction from taking the thirtham after the daily pujas and on other specified occasions before giving that holy water to the thirthakars (the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 7 to 23) and also directing these judgment-debtors to confer on the plaintiffs the mariyadas" specified in the plaint schedule, one of those mariyadas being that garlands should be thrown on the necks of the decree-holders after they are given the thirtham. The present Execution Petition No. 33 of 1913" was presented against the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, but in these appeals the 4th and 5th defendants alone are respectively the respondents.
(2.) The relief prayed in the execution petition against them is that they might be imprisoned and their property might be attached under Rule 32 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to enforce two of the injunctions which were granted against them and which they are alleged to have disobeyed.
(3.) The particulars of the disobedience are thus set out: (I) They have, since 31st December 1912, been taking thirtham first before serving the same to the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 23 on every day on the occasions mentioned in item (1) of the plaint schedule in violation of the decree and in spite of the protests of the 1st plaintiff: 2. They have been making a paricharaka to garland the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 7 to 28 instead of themselves doing so and have thus acted in violation of the decree. 3. Now, the counter-petition or answer to the execution petition admits that the defendants Nos. 4. and 5 did take the holy water just before offering it to the first thirthamdars and justifies it on certain grounds which I shall set out as they are found in the counter-petition: