- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 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. 106919 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.106859 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 106919 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI SUNIL S/O GAJANAN BALEKUNDRI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL WORKER AND EX CORPORATOR, R/O BHANDUR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SHRI ABHIJIT S/O BHIMA CHAVAN AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O CCB NO. 78, TANAJI GALLI, BELAGAVI-59001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI KAPILNATH S/O KASHINATH PUJARI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. CLAIMING HIMSELF AS PRIEST, R/O KAPILESHWAR ROAD, BELGAVI-590001. 2. SHRI SHRINATH S/O KASHINATH PUJARI AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PUJARI, R/O KAPILESHWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SHRI RAJU S/O SHIVAJI BHATKHANDE AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE R/O H.NO. 350, 2ND CROSS, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.21 16:17:41 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 4. SHRI AJIT S/O DATTATRYA JADHAV AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O PLOT NO. 39, 3RD CROSS, SAMARTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. 5. SHRI RAHUL S/O JAYAWANT KURNE AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O H.NO. 348/5, SAMBHAJI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHREEVTSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND C/R2, NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 DISPENSED WITH) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7/8/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI IN MISC. APPEAL NO.70/2018 C/W MISC. APPEAL NO.82/2018 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.688/2018 ON IA NO.1 DATED 7/8/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND K. IN WRIT PETITION NO.106859 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. RAJU S/O SHIVAJI BHATKHANDE AGE 42 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE R/O H.NO.350, 2ND CROSS, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SHRI AJIT S/O DATTATRAYA JADHAV AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O PLOT NO.39, 3RD CROSS, SAMARTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SHRI RAHUL S/O JAYAWANT KURNE AGE 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O H.NO. 348/85, SAMBHAJI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 AND: 1. SHRI KAPILNATH S/O KASHINATH PUJARI AGE 32 YEARS, OCC. CLAIMING HIMSELF AS PRIEST R/O KAPILESHWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SHRI SHRINATH S/O KASHINATH PUJARI AGE 30 YEARS, OCC. PUJARI R/O KAPILESHWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SHRI SUNIL S/O GAJANAN BALEKUNDRI AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL WORKER AND CORPORATOR R/O BHANDUR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590005. 4. SHRI ABHIJIT S/O BHIMA CHAVAN AGE 39 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE R/O CCB NO. 78, TANAJI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHREEVTSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 DISPENSED WITH) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7/8/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY THE COURT OF 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI IN MISC.APPEAL NO.70/2018 C/W MISC. APPEAL NO.82/2018 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.688/2018 ON IA NO.1 & 2 DATED 7/8/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND K THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: In W.P.No.106919/2024 1) To issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 7/8/2024 vide Annexure-M passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi in Misc. Appeal No.70/2018 C/w Misc. Appeal No.82/2018 confirming the order passed by the Trial Court 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi in O.S.No.688/2018 on I.A.No.1 and 2 dated 7/8/2018 vide Annexure-J and K. 2) Issue any other writ, order or direction to which the plaintiffs are found in the present facts and circumstances. In W.P.No.106859/2024 1) To issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 7/8/2024 vide Annexure-M passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi in Misc. Appeal No.70/2018 C/w Misc. Appeal No.82/2018 confirming the order passed by the Trial Court 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi in O.S.No.688/2018 on I.A.No.1 & 2 dated 7/8/2018 vide Annexure-J and K. 2) Issue any other writ, order or direction to which the plaintiffs are found in the present facts and circumstances. 2. The facts of the case in brief are; 2.1. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a suit in O.S.No.688/2018 seeking for the following reliefs: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 (a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to 5, 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, the respondents 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, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 their agents, servants or any body acting on 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 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 are before this Court in W.P.No.106859 defendants No.4 and 5 are before this Court and in W.P.No.106919/2024. 3. The submission of Sri.Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners is that; 3.1. The plaintiffs have to stand on their own foot and ought to have established that the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 plaintiffs have been performing pooja. A mere suit for injunction was not maintainable. The plaintiffs had to seek for declaration that they were pujaris/Archakas of Lord Kapileshwar Mahadev Temple. That relief not having been sought for, and only a bare injunction being sought for, the injunction ought not to have been granted to the plaintiffs. 3.2. The plaintiffs are not performing Pooja and as such, their claim that they are performing Pooja has been wrongly considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3.3. He submits that defendants No.1 to 5, who are petitioners in both the above petitions, have been appointed by the Deputy Commissioner for administration of the temple and as such, they are not third parties or devotees as contended by the plaintiffs and/or persons interested in the administration of the temple. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 3.4. Lastly, he submits that the plaintiffs themselves in para 10 of the plaint having contended that the loss which has been caused to the plaintiffs is on account of the income by performing Pooja and that income being measurable in terms of money, it cannot be said that irreparable injury is caused to the plaintiffs requiring an order of injunction. As such, any injury compensating in terms of money, there is no requirement of any order of injunction to be passed by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. 4. Heard Sri.Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Shreevatsa S. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the papers. 5. The suit was filed in the year 2018 and the first order of injunction was passed on 07.08.2018, which is continued to be in force till today. On enquiry as to what is the status of the suit, Sri.Shreevatsa S. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 Hegde, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, who are plaintiffs before the Trial Court, stated that the evidence of the plaintiffs has been and the matter is posted for cross-examination. 6. That being the status of the suit, I am of the considered opinion that it would be required for all the issues to be thrashed out before Trial Court, the trial having already commenced. 7. Be that as it may, the contention of Sri.Sangram S. Kulkarni would also have to be addressed inasmuch as the contention that the defendants are part of the Administrative Committee appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, the said contention not having taken in any pleading in the plaint nor any documents have been produced before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court or this Court, that contention cannot be taken up before this Court for the first time. However, if at all the defendants are appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is for the defendants to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 produce the said documents before the Trial Court, which are to be considered by the Trial Court. 8. Insofar as the question of injury being compensable in terms of money, the allegations made by reading of the plaint indicates that it is relating to performance Pooja, which has been agitated by the plaintiffs. A reference being made to loss being caused to them on account of loss of income by not performing the Pooja, is only one of the grievances of the plaintiffs and that is not the sole ground. As such, the right claimed is a right to perform Pooja and the intention thereof being right of earning money by performing Pooja, I am of the considered opinion that the same would not be an injury which can be compensated in terms of money, and as such, the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in this regard are sustainable. 9. Insofar as the contention of Sri.Sangram S. Kulkarni that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 and that a suit for declaration has to be filed, I am of the considered opinion that there is no title to any property or the like which is claimed by the plaintiffs and they have sought for a bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the pooja. Such claim would have to be established during the course of trial, that the plaintiffs have been performing the Pooja and there is interference by the defendants. 10. The contention of Sri Sangram Kulkarni that plaintiffs are not performing Pooja and that Pooja having been performed by the persons appointed by the Trust, could also be established by the defendants in the said suit during the course of trial, and at this stage, the said contention cannot be accepted. More so, as indicated above, the order of injunction had been passed on 07.08.2018, I am of the opinion that the same cannot disturbed after the same being in operation for more than 7 years. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3517 WP No. 106919 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106859 OF 2024 11. No grounds being made out, both the above petitions are dismissed. 12. The submission of Sri.Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in the suit and submission of Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the defendants in the said suit, that they will cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and would not seek for any unnecessary adjournments, is placed on record. The Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and taking into consideration the workload of the said Court. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0