AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.M. Shyam Prasad, J
This intra – court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 100426/2024 (The writ petition is filed in the year 2918 calling in question the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s Order dated 13.03.2018 in Revision Petition No. 88/2007. This Order confirms the grant of certain land [the subject property] to the first respondent) called in question the writ Court’s order dated 20.01.2025 on an application [IA No. 1/2015] filed by the first respondent. The Writ Court, by this impugned order dated 20.01.2025 A copy of the order as uploaded is annexed in the wit appeal. maintain the status-quo, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2025, restraining the official respondents from interfering with Uattaradi Mutt's custody and control of Sri.Naraharithirtharu Brundavana, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit of the injunction order enjoyed by the Uttaradi Mutt and the Hon'ble Apex Court having directed maintenance of the status-quo, would require this Court to allow I.A.1/2025 and thereby restrain Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from in any manner disturbing the annual Aradhanas of Sri.Naraharithirtharu, at his Brundavana, to be performed by the Uttaradi Mutt from 20.01.2025 to 22.01.2025. has restrained the appellant from disturbing the annual Aradhana of Sri Narahari Theertharu in his Brindavan in the subject property. The Writ Court in so restraining the appellant has observed thus:
“The grant of the land in favour of Uttaradi Mutt being upheld by the KAT and the order of the KAT being under challenge in the present writ petitions, there being an injunction order in force against the Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from 16.01.2003 till 09.01.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide is interim order dated 17.01.2025, directed the parties to maintain the status-quo, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2025, restraining the official respondents from interfering with Uattaradi Mutt's custody and control of Sri.Naraharithirtharu Brundavana, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit of the injunction order enjoyed by the Uttaradi Mutt and the Hon'ble Apex Court having directed maintenance of the status-quo, would require this Court to allow I.A.1/2025 and thereby restrain Raghavendra Swamy Mutt from in any manner disturbing the annual Aradhanas of Sri.Naraharithirtharu, at his Brundavana, to be performed by the Uttaradi Mutt from 20.01.2025 to 22.01.2025.”
The appellant has filed this appeal contending that, after it is successful in its second appeal in R.S.A. No. 2892/2006, it has made all arrangements for offering the Annual Aradhana and that the Aradhana for the present year is commenced on 20.01.2025 and is scheduled to be completed on 22.01.2025, but by the impugned order the writ court has injuncted it from continuing with Aradhana without even an opportunity to file objections to the application on the very same date it is filed.
Sri C.V. Nagesh and Sri Prabhuling Navadagi, the learned senior counsels for the appellant, while reiterating the appellant’s case of lack of complete opportunity to file pleadings, submit that after the judgment in R.S.A. No. 2892/2006, the appellant’s pontiff has visited the Brindavan and has also made arrangements for Aradhana commencing from 20.01.2025 and in support of this contention they rely on this Court’s finding in RSA 2892/2006 which reads as under:
“………….. and therefore, in the light of the said fact, I find force in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant-Mutt that the finding recorded by both the Courts below, requires to be set-aside as the plaintiff- Mutt had failed to establish that the plaintiff-Mutt is in lawful possession over the schedule property consequently, it cannot be held that the plaintiff-Mutt alone is performing Aradhana of Sri. Narahariteertha Swamy.”
The learned senior counsels next contend that [i] the Apex Court, in the Special leave Petition filed by the first respondent in SLP No. 1415/2005 as against the judgment and decree in RSA No. 2892/2006, has granted interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo, [ii] that by virtue of this interim order the appellant’s pointiff, who commenced pooja at the Brindavan even before the order of status-quo, as seen in photographs at page no. 244 and 245, is entitled to continue to Aradhana, [iii] that if there was any violation of the Apex Court’s order to maintain status-quo, an application would lie only with the Apex Court and not otherwise.
The learned senior counsels canvass that the first respondent has filed contempt petition with the Apex Court in Diary No. 3501/2025 which was listed today, but the first respondent has chosen to withdraw the same only because the Apex Court proposed to vacate the order of status-quo. The learned senior counsels also endeavour to point out the similarity in the pleadings before the Apex Court and in the subject application with the Writ Court to emphasize that any application for violation of the order of status-quo or clarification should only be with the Apex Court and not in the writ proceedings where the subject matter relates to the merits of grant in favour of the first respondent.
Sri Udaya Holla and Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, the learned senior counsels for the first respondent, contend that the Apex Court’s order to maintain status-quo is only a reiteration of the arrangement that has prevailed for the period between 09.01.2001 and 09.01.2025. They emphasize that with the civil Court in the original suit making an arrangement for proportionate time to both the appellant and the respondent to offer Aradhana, the appellate Court interfering with this arrangement and this Court confirming such orders, the Apex Court, examining the merits of these orders, has refused to intervene and consequentially until the date of judgment in RSA No. 2892/2006, the first respondent has been performing Aradhana.
The learned counsels further submit that the application in the writ petition is well founded because there was immediate threat at the appellant’s behest attempting to obstruct the Aradhana commencing from 20.01.2025, and they also submit that it would be open to the first respondent in a writ petition [as to a defendant in a suit] to sustain an application for an interim when the circumstances so demand. When queried on the outcome in the contempt proceedings in the light of the submissions on behalf of the appellant, they contest such assertions.
At this stage, this Court must record circumstances, and these circumstances are as follows.
[i] The first respondent, ere filing SLP No. 1415/2025 calling in question the judgment and decree in RSA No. 2892/2006, has filed a WP in No. 100199/2025 against the Authorities alleging they at the instance of the appellant is interfering with its possession of the subject property notwithstanding their right to appeal and the Writ Court on 15.01.2025 has restrained the authorities from interfering.
[ii] The learned senior counsels are at variance on certain factual matrix as regards the Aradhana that is offered to the Theertharu between 20.01.2025 and 22.01.2025 with the learned senior counsels on behalf of the appellant contending that the appellant’s pontiff has begun Aradhana but is obstructed by the authorities in view of the impugned order and the learned senior counsels on behalf of the first respondent contending that someone on behalf of the appellant but not pontiff tried to begin but this first respondent’s pontiff who is performing Aradhana.
[iii] The Apex Court has permitted the first respondent to withdraw the contempt petition with certain oral observations with both sides presenting their own version of what has transpired.
The overwhelming circumstances for this Court insofar as the present case is that the Apex Court is seized of the respective and has directed both the parties to maintain status-quo. If there is to be any controversy about the extents or limits of such order, or any right could emerge from that order, the concerned ought to file an application with all the necessary material before the Apex Court and not in the other proceedings, unless liberty is reserved in that regard. The other courts, including the writ courts, must observe restraint in intervening lest the arrangement prescribed and intended by the Apex Court is disturbed unwittingly or otherwise. This Court must next observe that given the nature of dispute even with the Apex Court, at the first instance [in the year 2001], refusing to interfere with the arrangement, it was incumbent upon the first respondent, to await the outcome of the contempt petition if such petition was not filed to make an application with the Apex Court. This Court, therefore, cannot but observe that the writ Court’s order on the first respondent’s application when tested against the afore factors cannot be sustained.
On the next question as to what should be the direction insofar as the on-going Aradhana, this Court must opine that the material as now placed are inconclusive, as observed at the first instance, is a matter that must be considered by the Apex Court, especially with petitioner and the first respondents presenting divergent reasons for the withdrawal the contempt petition. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Apex Court has reserved any liberty. The party affected must approach the Apex Court if controversy continues while observing that the first respondent has had the advantage of performing Aradhana for the last two decades with the appellant being unable to place material in regard to establish that it has also performed Aradhana.
In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER
The writ appeal is allowed quashing the writ Court’s order dated 20.01.2025 in W.P. No. 100426/2024 on the application [IA No. 1/2015] filed by the respondent subject to all just exceptions.