1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA

WRIT PETITION Nos.40319/2012 & 41030/2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. Hunasamaranahalli Samsthana Mutt, Represented by its Utharadhikari, Sri Pattada Sri Parvatharaja, Shivacharya Swamigalu.

2. Sri.Pattada Sri Parvatharaja Shivacharya Swamigalu, Aged 76 years, 13 th Successor (Utharadhikari)

3. Sri.P.Sachidananda Wadeyar, S/o.Sri.Pattada Sri.Parvatharaja, Shivacharya Swamiji, Aged 30 years,

3. Sri.Dayanand, (now called Pattada Sri Guru Nanjeswara Shivacharya Swamiji Aged 28 years, Matadipathi, Hunasamaranahalli Samsthana Mutt,

1 to 4 at Hunasamaranahalli village Jala Hobli, Bangalore North – 562 157. ...Petitioners 2

(By Sri.R.B.Sadashivappa, Advocate)

AND:

1. Sri.Maddevanapura, Deva Simhasana Mahasamsthana Mutt Trust ® Hunasamaranahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore – 562 157. Represented by its President Sri.S.ARudraradhya.

2. Sri.S.ARudraradhya, S/o. late Sri.Ayyanappa, Aged 52 years, President, Sri.Maddevanapura, Devasimhasana Mahasamsthana Mutt Trust ®

3. Sri.P.Shivakumar S/o. late Sri.Prabhuvaiah, Aged 40 years, Joint Secretary, Sri.Maddevanapura, Devasimhasana Mahasamsthana Mutt Trust ®

2 and 3 are r/o Hunasamaranahalli, Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North – 562 157.

4. Sri.Pillappa, S/o. late Sri.Muniyappa, Aged 89 years, R/o. Kadenahalli Village, Aradeshanahalli Post, Hesaraghatta Hobli, 3

Bangalore North Taluk.

5. Smt.Prema Kumari, W/o. late Sri.Shiva Kumar, Aged 49 years.

6. Sri.Renuka Prasad, S/o. Sri.B.K.Chandrashekar, Aged 27 years.

5 and 6 are r/o.Hunasamaranahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North – 562 157.

7. Sri.H.S.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Sri.Srinivas, R/o.Hasigalu village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk .

8. Sri.Lingadevachar S/o late Sri.Gangachar, Aged 67 years, r/o.Hunasamaranahalli village Jala Hobli, Bangalore North – 562 157

9. The Tahasildar Muzarai Officer, Bangalore North

10. The Assistant Commissioner Bangalore North Bangalore

11. The Commissioner 4

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Chamarajpet Bangalore – 560 018.

12. State of Karnataka Represented by its Chief Secretary Muzarai Department Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondents

(By Sri. H.V.Raja Ram, Advocate for C/R2-3; Sri.M.Ramaswamy, Advocate for R4-8, R9 – R12 notice dispensed with Notice to R2 is Dispensed with)

****** These WPs are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution Of praying to quash the impugned order dated 12.05.2011 passed on I.A.2 and also the order dated 17.09.2012 passed on I.A.12 vide Annexure – E respectively in O.S.No.116/2011 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District. Bangalore.

These writ petitions are coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:-

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 8.

5

2. In these writ petitions under articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the orders dated 12.05.2011 and 17.09.2012 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.116/2011 on IA.Nos.2 and 12.

3. By the impugned order at Annexure – E, the Trial

Court has allowed IA.No.2 and granted leave to the respondents to file the suit. Thereafter, by order dated

17.09.2012 the trial Court has rejected IA.No.12 to set aside the order dated 12.05.2011.

4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

5. The respondents 1 to 8 have filed suit in

O.S.No.116/2011 for declaration, injunction and other reliefs.

In the said suit, the respondents 1 to 8 have filed IA.No.2 for grant of leave to file the suit. The trial Court by its order dated 12.05.2011 has allowed IA.No.2. Thereafter, the 6

petitioners have filed IA.No.12 to set aside the order dated

12.05.2011. The trial Court by its order dated 17.09.2012 has rejected IA.No.12. Therefore, these writ petitions.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the impugned order dated 12.05.2011 has been passed without notice to the petitioners and thereafter,

IA.No.12 has been rejected without assigning any reasons.

He also submitted the impugned orders are contrary to the decision of this Court reported in 1980 (2) K.L.J Page 469 and Civil Rules of practice and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law.

7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 8 submitted that the impugned orders do not call for interference. Further, they submitted that the trial Court considering the plaint averments has granted leave. They also submitted that serious allegations of mismanagement of Mutt property have been made and the 7

trial Court considering this has granted leave and thereafter, has rightly rejected IA.No12 and therefore, the impugned orders do not call for interference. They also submitted that notice is not required to consider the application for grant of leave. The trial Court in its discretion has granted leave and therefore, the impugned orders do not call for interference.

They placed reliance on the following decisions;

1) 1980(2) KAR.L.J page 469. 2) AIR 1989 ALL page 194. 3) AIR 1982 PUNJAB AND HARIYANA page 137. 4) AIR 1974 SC page 2141. 5) AIR 1991 SC page 221.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the impugned orders calls for interference?

10. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.116/2011 has been filed by the respondents 1 to 8 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The respondents 1 to 8

8 have averred mismanagement of Mutt property. They have sought for grant of leave to file the suit. The trial Court has allowed I.A.No.2 to file the suit, but no reasons are assigned.

Thereafter, the petitioners have filed IA No.12 to set aside the order passed on I.A.No.2. The trial Court has dismissed

I.A.No.12 without assigning any reasons. While it is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents no notice is required to consider I.A for grant of leave. But, that does not mean the trial Court can grant leave under Section

92 of CPC without assigning any reasons. In the present case, no reasons are assigned while considering IA.No.2 or IA

No.12. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. This Court in The Church of South India Trust

Association vs. REV.D.I.Anand and others reported in 1982

KAR.L.J 469 has held that an order without notice and without giving any reasons is illegal and liable to be set aside.

In the present case, the impugned orders are without any reasons and no notice is issued on 9

I.A.No.2. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the trial Court on IA.Nos.2 and

12 in O.S.No.116/2012 are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to re-consider IA.No.2 in accordance with law by giving opportunity to the parties. The petitioners can file their objections to IA.No.2. In the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to consider IA.No.2 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. IA.No.12 is unnecessary as order passed on IA No.2 has been set-aside.

IA.Nos.1 and 2/2012 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE

HJ*