( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 15-7-2004 made in I. A. No. 829 of 2004 in o. S. No. 188 of 2004 on the file of the learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, chittoor District.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 188 of 2004, which was laid seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff as Archaka of Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, kudurucheemanapalli. Along with the suit, the respondent-plaintiff also filed LA. No. 829 of 2004 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. By an order dated 15-7-2004, the trial court while depensing with urgent notice granted temporary injunction. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that though without filing any vacate petition before the trial Court, straight away this civil revision petition is filed by the defendants mainly on the ground that the very suit itself is not maintainable in respect of the disputes relating to management of an endowment in view of Section 151 read with Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the act ) and as such, the lower Court is denuded of its jurisdiction and the suit itself is not maintainable; therefore, the interim injunction order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) SRI C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the very suit is not maintainable before the civil Court in view of Section 151 read with Section 87 of the Act. He contended that not only the suit, but also the other legal proceedings in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matter of dispute related to that (where there is a provision made in the Act) are barred from being raised before the civil court. For the disputes for which a provision is available under the Act for decision of the authority, the civil suit or other legal proceedings are barred. Section 87 (1) of the Act takes care of all the disputes relating to administration and management of an institution or endowment or any other matter of dispute to be determined by the authority under the Act. Therefore, the very suit laid before the civil Court is not maintainable and this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India can prevent gross injustice or failure of justice when the Court or Tribunal has assumed jurisdiction, which it does not have. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment reported in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (5) ALD 36 (SC) = 2003 (5) ALT 19 (SC), and drawn attention of the Court to paragraph-23, which reads as under :"23. The difference between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was well brought out in Umaji Keshao Meshram and others v. Smt. Radhikabai and another, (1986) supp. SCC 401. Proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings under article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India act, 1915 excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this article to Tribunals as well. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary Court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate Courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document