- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14906 WP No. 102666 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 102666 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GOPAL ACHAR S/O NARASIMHARAO KOTABAGI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. PRIEST, R/O. VANAVASI SHREERAM TEMPLE, STATION ROAD, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580 007. … PETITIONER (BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, VANAVASI SHREERAM TEMPLE TRUST, STATION ROAD, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580 007. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL AND SRI. ROHIT B. PATIL, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN M.A. NO.7/2024 DATED 04.03.2025 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-G AND RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN O.S. NO.116/2022 ON I.A. NO.1 DATED 11.01.2024 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14906 WP No. 102666 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in M.A.No.7/2024 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad1, in exercise of Jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082. 2. In terms of the said order, the appeal filed by the defendant, who is respondent before this Court, is allowed and temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff is vacated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was officiating as a priest in the temple belonging to the respondent/Trust since 1999. It is the petitioner’s case that even till today he is officiating as a priest. When the respondent/Trust tried to disturb the petitioner from performing pooja in the temple managed by the Trust, the petitioner filed a suit and sought for temporary injunction. The Trial Court granted 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14906 WP No. 102666 of 2025 temporary injunction on the premise that the plaintiff is the priest of said temple. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Court could not have vacated the injunction order on the premise that the plaintiff has not produced records to show that he is still officiating as a priest. It is further submitted that the fact that the plaintiff is officiating as a priest is admitted by the defendant. Thus, it is urged that the Appellate Court could not have reversed the order passed by the Trial Court, which is passed in exercise of discretion. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent submits that way back in their 2018, the petitioner/plaintiff was terminated from the post of priest by passing a resolution and same is admitted by the petitioner. Said resolution is not called in question and there was no fixed tenure or period for the petitioner’s appointment to perform pooja. The Trust always had the right to terminate the services, when it found that they were no longer required. Thus, it is urged that the Trial Court should not have granted the injunction, and that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14906 WP No. 102666 of 2025 the Appellate Court rightly vacated the temporary injunction order. 6. This court has considered the contentions raised the Bar and perused the records. 7. Prima facie it appears that the plaintiff was officiating as a priest in the temple managed by the respondent/Trust since 1999. The Appellate Court has observed that in the year 2018, resolution is passed by the respondent/Trust to remove the petitioner/plaintiff from the post of priest, and it was communicated to the plaintiff in 2018. At this juncture, no document is placed before this Court to show that the plaintiff's tenure as a priest was for a certain period, beyond the resolution date. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that appointment order is produced and the appointment order does not indicate as to the tenure of the plaintiff as a priest. 9. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff cannot contend that he has the right to continue as a priest. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14906 WP No. 102666 of 2025 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no due process was followed in terminating the petitioner and false allegations have been levelled. Since there is no provision of law mandating termination of a service of this nature in a particular way, this Court is of the view that prima facie case is not made out to grant of a temporary injunction. 11. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is not entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. However, the observations made in this order should not be construed as having expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. 13. All contentions kept open to be considered by the Trial Court based on the evidence that will be placed before it. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36