JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. This original petition impugnes an order passed in a final decree proceedings initiated for the purpose of framing a scheme in respect of a private temple based on a common judgment and decree in O.S No.54/1996 and O.S No.144/2003 dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Sub Court, Tirur. O.S No.54/1996 was instituted for the purpose of declaring the plaintiff as the eldest member of the family. O.S No.144/2003 was instituted by the junior members of the tharavad for the formulation of a scheme for the administration of Moonniyur Kaliyattakavu Ammancheri Devaswom. By Ext.P1 judgment and decree, the trial court passed a preliminary decree in O.S No.54/1996, declaring the plaintiff as the senior most living male member of Vilivelli tharavad. The connected suit O.S No.144/2003 was decreed by passing a preliminary decree for streamlining a scheme for proper management of Moonniyur Kaliyattakavu Devaswom and its properties. Pertinently, defendants 19 and 20, who are members of the so-called Kshethra Paripalana Sahaya committee, were restrained from interfering with the peaceful administration of the temple and its management. The common judgments in the suit were taken up before this Court in R.F.A No.198/2006 and R.F.A No.53/2007, which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment. During the appellate stage, since an occasion arose for the purpose of conducting the ritual in connection with the festival, this Court had appointed an official Receiver. While appointing two Advocate Commissioners as official Receivers, this Court clarified that the directions contained in the impugned decrees, which were not dealt with in the judgment, will stand. The court further made clear that the parties to the proceedings are free to move the court below for appropriate interim measures relating to the administration of the temple. Based on the aforementioned directions, certain third parties were permitted to assist the official receivers appointed by this Court in relation to the matters governing conduct of the festival. Armed with the directions passed by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, I.A No.584/2019 was filed in the final decree proceedings, FDIA No.525/2019 in O.S No.144/2003, by 10 persons claiming themselves interested in the proceedings. The petitioners in the final decree proceedings objected to their impleadment on the ground that the petitioners sought to be impleaded neither had right to meddle with the final decree proceedings nor were interested persons for the purpose of framing a scheme for management of the temple. The petitioners in the final decree proceedings objected to their impleadment on the ground that the petitioners sought to be impleaded neither had right to meddle with the final decree proceedings nor were interested persons for the purpose of framing a scheme for management of the temple. The objection was overruled on the ground that this Court had permitted them to be impleaded and accordingly additional respondents 19 to 28 were impleaded, which is impugned in the present original petition. 2. Heard Shri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri.Stephen V. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri.S.Vishnu, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 to 10, Shri.M.Devesh, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 11 to 24, Shri.Mahesh.V. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 46 to 50. 3. On consideration of the submissions raised across the Bar, the only question to be decided by this Court is whether the executing court was justified in allowing the impleadment of the additional respondents 19 to 28 in the final decree proceedings. A perusal of the order impugned shows that the only ground stated by the trial court to allow the application is that this Court has permitted the petitioners therein to implead themselves in R.F.A No.53/2007. 4. No doubt the petitioners before the trial court in I.A No.584/2019 were impleaded before this Court as additional respondents in R.F.A No.53/2007. But then a perusal of Ext.P2 judgment shows that, the directions contained in the impugned decrees, which were not dealt with in the judgment, were affirmed. Moreover, the liberty was granted to the parties in the suit to move the court below for appropriate interim measures relating to the administration of the temple. 5. What remains to be considered by this Court is whether the additional respondents, who sought themselves to be impleaded before the trial court in the final decree proceedings, have any interest in the matter of administration of the temple in question. Read as may, this Court could not find any reservation in their favour neither in Ext.P2 judgment nor in the decrees which are impugned before this Court. 6. Read as may, this Court could not find any reservation in their favour neither in Ext.P2 judgment nor in the decrees which are impugned before this Court. 6. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that their interest is only limited to the extent of reserving the right, which they have in connection with the rituals to be conducted during the festivals. To that extent alone they have sought to implead themselves in the final decree proceedings. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that whatever rights the respondents have in the matter relating to the rituals in connection with the festival conducted in the temple will have to be preserved and that the petitioner has no objection in granting the same. However, he further pointed out that in the guise of that right, the respondents cannot be permitted to meddle with the management and administration of the temple. 8. The respective right of the parties who have sought themselves to be impleaded in the final decree proceedings is a crucial aspect while the trial court considers the application for impleadment. None of the contentions raised by the parties seems to have been adverted to by the trial court, while granting the relief in the impugned order. As afore, since this Court has already found that while considering R.F.A No.53/2007, no reservations were made in favour of the parties, who have sought themselves to be impleaded in the final decree proceedings, they cannot be permitted to get themselves impleaded so as to raise their objection or their views in the matter of framing a scheme. Therefore, the order impugned will have to be modified to certain extent. In the result, the original petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P6 order, which permits the impleading of the additional respondents 19 to 28 in the final decree proceedings, enabling them to raise objection to the framing of the scheme. The impleading of petitioners in I.A No.584/2019 in FDIA No.525/2019 in O.S No.144/2003 as additional respondents 19 to 28 in the final decree proceedings will stand allowed only to the limited extent of permitting them to establish their right during the temple festival. The impleading of petitioners in I.A No.584/2019 in FDIA No.525/2019 in O.S No.144/2003 as additional respondents 19 to 28 in the final decree proceedings will stand allowed only to the limited extent of permitting them to establish their right during the temple festival. It is made clear that the additional respondents 19 to 28 impleaded in FDIA No.525/2019 in O.S No.144/2003 have no right to say in respect to the framing of the scheme for the management of the temple. It is made clear that these findings will not be applicable to the petitioners in I.A No.3/2025 in FDIA No.525/2019 in O.S No.144/2003, which is yet another application for impleading respondents as additional respondents 29 to 33 in the final decree proceedings. The said application shall be taken up and considered on the respective merits of parties. Since the final decree proceeding is pending from 2019 onwards, there shall be a direction to the Sub Court, Tirur, to take up FDIA No.525/2019 in O.S No.144/2003 as priority and first dispose of all the pending interlocutory applications, at any rate, within a period of two months from the receipt of the copy of this judgment. Once the interlocutory applications are disposed of, the Sub Court, Tirur, is directed to expedite the hearing of FDIA No.525/2019 in O.S No.144/2003 and dispose of the same at any rate within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that the additional respondents 19 to 28 shall be entitled to put forward their case as regards the rituals in connection with the festival to be conducted in the temple, which may also form part of the administration and management of the temple.