- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 108250 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 108250 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI.KAPILNATH S/O. KASHINATH PUJARI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST, R/O: 9/1, KAPILESHWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI.SHRINATH S/O. KASHINATH PUJARI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST, R/O: 9/1, KAPILESHWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHREEVTSA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI.RAJU S/O SHIVAJI BHATKANDE AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H.NO.350, II CROSS, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI.AJIT S/O DATTATRAYA JADHAV AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.39, III CROSS, SAMARTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI.RAHUL S/O JAYAWANT KURNE AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.348/2, SAMBHAJI GALLI, BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI.ABHIJIT S/O BHIMA CHAVAN AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: CCB 78, TANAJI GALLI, BELAGAVI. GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.21 16:17:43 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 108250 of 2018 5. SHRI.SUNIL BALEKUNDRI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: CORPORATOR, R/O: BHANDUR GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER DATED 07.08.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.688/2018 ON I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. To issue a writ or order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, JMFC, Belagavi in O.S.No.688/2018 on I.A.No.3 filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection produced as per Annexure-A. b. Issue any other writ or direction which this Hon’ble deems fit to meet the ends of justice. 2. The facts of the case in brief are; 2.1. Petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.688/2018 seeking for the following reliefs: (a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to 5, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 108250 of 2018 their agents, servants or anybody acting on his behalf permanently from interfering with the performance of their rights of performing the Pujas and other religious rituals by the plaintiffs towards Lord Kapileshwar and other Gods which are installed around the main temple. (b) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to 5, their agents, servants or anybody acting on their behalf permanently from forming any new Trust illegally without involving the plaintiffs who are the Hereditary trustees of Lord Kapileshwar Mahadev Temple Trust. (c) Awarding the cost of the suit. (d) Awarding any other equitable relief for which the plaintiffs are entitled to and (e) Permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as and when necessary. 2.2. In the said suit, petitioners had sought for and also filed the interlocutory applications, I.A.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking for the following relief: “Herein, the application submitted on behalf of the plaintiff is as under For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit it is most humbly prayed that the order of ad interim injunction be granted against the defendant no 1 to 5, their agents, servants or any body acting on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 108250 of 2018 his behalf from interfering the peaceful performance and the conduct of the daily puja and religious rituals of Lord Kapileshwar Mahadev and the other deities around the main temple pending disposal of this suit in the interest of justice and equity.” 2.3. The Trial Court on considering the said application vide its order dated 07.08.2018, allowed the same in terms of the following: Order I.A.No.1 filed by plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is allowed. The defendants, their agents or anybody acting on their behalf are restrained from interfering in plaintiffs peaceful performance and conduct of pooja and rituals to Lord Kapilashwar Mahadev and other deities around the temple, pending disposal of the suit. 2.4. Challenging the said order, defendants No.5 and 4 filed Misc.Appeal No.70/2018 and defendants No.1 to 3 filed Misc.Appeal No.82/2018, before the Senior Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi. Both appeals came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2018. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 108250 of 2018 2.5. It is also required to be mentioned here that plaintiffs had filed two interlocutory applications. In I.A.2 plaintiffs were seeking for injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 5 from forming any New Trust illegally with regard to the Lord Kapileshwar Mahadev Temple and I.A.No.3 was filed for direction to the CPI, Khade Bazar Police Station to give protection of the plaintiffs while conducting the daily puja and religious rituals to Lord Kapileshwar Mahadev and the other Dieties around the main temple. Those two applications were rejected by the Trial Court by separate orders dated 07.08.2024. 2.6. The First Appellate Court after examining all the matters and contentions, vide detailed order of 65 pages, had held that there was prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs to show that irreparable injury or loss would be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 108250 of 2018 caused to the plaintiffs and hence, an order of injunction was rightly granted. The Miscellaneous Appeal Court came to a prima facie finding that the plaintiffs being the sons of Kashinath who was the Archaka or Poojari performing pooja at Lord Kapileshwar Mahadev Temple, they are also entitled to perform pooja and that the defendants could not interfere with the same. 2.7. It is challenging the said orders of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that defendants No.1, 2 and 3 filed W.P.No.106859/2024 and defendants No.4 and 5 filed W.P.No.106919/2024, which have been disposed of today by way of a separate order. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 108250 of 2018 3. The present petition arises out of the order rejecting I.A.No.3 filed under Section 151 of CPC for police protection by the plaintiffs. 4. The submission of Sri.Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs is that, though injunction order has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants are preventing the plaintiffs from performing the poojas rendering the injunction order illusory and as such, the plaintiffs are required to be provided with police protection to implement the order of injunction to be passed. 5. On enquiry with the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether any complaint has been filed with the jurisdictional police as regards the alleged interference, he submits that, though an attempt was made, the complaint was not accepted. 6. There being nothing on record to indicate any complaint having been filed, there cannot be a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 108250 of 2018 direction which could be issued to the police to provide any assistance and if at all the plaintiffs were to file any complaint to the jurisdictional police, the jurisdictional police are duty bound to register necessary FIR and proceed with the matter. 7. With the above observations, petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19