- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1859 CRP No. 100182 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100182 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SANNAMALLA S/O. CHANNAMALLAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 2. CHANNAMALLAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 3. MALLAYYA S/O. PARAWAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHOBA S/O. VIJAY GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. CHANNAMMALLAYYA SANNAMALLYYA GUGIKOLLMATH SINCE DIED BY LRS., MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.01 11:43:00 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1859 CRP No. 100182 of 2022 2. DODDAMALLAYYA S/O. CHANNAMALLAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 3. SHRISAYYA S/O. CHANNAMMALLAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 4. SHIVAYYA S/O. CHANNAMMALLAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 5. BASAVARAJ S/O. CHANNAMALLAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 6. CHANAPARAYYA S/O. BASAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 7. DODDASHIEASAYYA S/O. MUDIMALLAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 8. SHIVALINGAYYA SANNAMALLAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH SINC DIED BY LRS., MALLAYYA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1859 CRP No. 100182 of 2022 S/O. SHIVALINGAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 9. SHENKRAYYA S/O. SHIVALINGAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 10. BALAYYA S/O. SHIVALINGAYYA GUGIKOLLMATH, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; R2 AND R3-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH; R4 TO R10-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE DATED 03.11.2022 PASSED IN OS NO. 317/2011 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK,THIS REVISION PETITION MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1859 CRP No. 100182 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1(B), 2 and 5, challenging the order dated 03.11.2022 in OS No.317/2011 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), on a preliminary issue as to maintainability of the suit. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has filed OS No.317/2011 against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants or their agents from disturbing the Pooja of Shri Mallikarjun Dev of Gugikoll village. 5. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. 6. The Trial Court framed issues for its consideration. In the meanwhile, the contesting defendants have filed WP No.105823/2015 before this Court to quash the proceedings in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1859 CRP No. 100182 of 2022 OS No.317/2011 on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable and this Court vide order dated 17.07.2015, directed the parties to file appropriate application under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the application filed by the defendants in IA No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint came to be dismissed and same was questioned before this Court by the contesting defendants in WP No.109022/2014 connected with WP No.109570/2015 and this Court by order dated 04.08.2021 passed the following order: “i) Writ Petitions are disposed of confirming the impugned order passed by the trial Court. ii) It is however made clear that all rival contentions between the parties regarding non maintainability/maintainability of the suit and applicability/non-applicability of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and Section 92 CPC, are kept open to be decided by the trial Court. iii) The trial Court is directed to treat the aforesaid issue with regard to maintainability of the suit in the light of the aforesaid contentions urged by both the sides as a preliminary issue and decide the same before proceeding further, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1859 CRP No. 100182 of 2022 7. Thereafter, the Trial Court in terms of the order of this Court, passed impugned order dated 03.11.2022 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the contesting defendants have preferred this Revision Petition. 8. Heard Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. S. R. Kamate, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that as the suit itself is not maintainable before this Court with regard to the matter which is in the realm of the provisions under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, and the said aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court in the right perspective and therefore, sought for interference by this Court. 10. Per contra, Sri. S. R. Kamate, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Civil Court is having jurisdiction and as such, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1859 CRP No. 100182 of 2022 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and having taken note of the averments made in the plaint the relief sought for by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants to perform Pooja at Mallikarjuna Dev of Gugikoll village. Though the temple in question is notified under section 23 of the aforementioned Act, however, the averments made in the plaint would not affect the rights of the parties to perform Pooja rights in the temple in question. 12. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabai and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, so also in the case of Vinayaka Dev, Idagunji and Others Vs. Shivaram and Others2, I am of the view that the suit is maintainable seeking relief of the permanent injunction and the said relief sought for by the plaintiff is nothing to do with the larger interest of the parties claiming hereditary relief and therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is to be confirmed and accordingly Revision Petition is dismissed. 1 AIR 1969 SC 78 2 (2005) 6 SCC 641 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1859 CRP No. 100182 of 2022 13. Parties are directed to expedite herein as the suit is of the year 2011. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26