(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
W.P. No. 100426/20241 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
property. The Writ Court in so restraining the appellant has
"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
1 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.
2 A copy of the order as uploaded is annexed in the wit appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1108-DB
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."
2. 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1108-DB
3. 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."
4. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1108-DB
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.
5. 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1108-DB
6. 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.
7. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1108-DB
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.
8. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1108-DB
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.
9. 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1108-DB
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.
10. 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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1108-DB
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.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
