Common Judgment:

Sri Vasantha Venu Gopala Swamy Vari Temple, Gottumukkala village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District, represented by its Chairman had preferred C.M.A.No.717 of 2008 as against an order made in I.A.No.284 of 2008 in O.S.No.101 of 2008 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (In the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama).

2. Likewise, C.M.A.No.718 of 2008 is preferred by the self same Temple (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Temple" for the purpose of convenience) as against an order made in I.A.No.285 of 2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2008 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (In the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama).

3. Respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs in both these matters being Mukkapati Venkateswara Rao and Seelamneni Venkateswara Rao though different, since similar questions are involved in both these civil miscellaneous appeals, for the purpose of convenience, these civil miscellaneous appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

4. Though these civil miscellaneous appeals are appearing under the caption of "interlocutory", at the request of Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel representing appellant and Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel representing respondents in both these civil miscellaneous appeals, these civil miscellaneous appeals are being disposed of finally.

5. These civil miscellaneous appeals are preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience). It appears, initially as against these orders, civil revision petitions had been moved by way of house-motion and interim orders had been obtained, but however on 20.6.2008 in the light of Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code, the learned counsel was permitted to convert the civil revision petitions into civil miscellaneous appeals and in the meanwhile the parties were directed to maintain status quo for all purposes.

6. Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel representing the appellant in both these civil miscellaneous appeals had taken this Court through the orders made by the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and would maintain that though it is interim injunction, as against such orders civil miscellaneous appeals would lie under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code. The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellant as defendant in both these suits had lodged Caveat No.23 of 2008 and Caveat No.21 of 2008 respectively and despite the lodging of caveats in both the matters and service of notice on respective opposite parties-plaintiffs, suppressing the same without putting the appellant-temple on notice, an ex parte interim order had been obtained. The learned counsel also further had taken this Court through the averments made in the respective plaints and also the affidavits filed in support of the applications praying for temporary injunction and would maintain that even on the face of the averments made in the pleadings, without going into further details, the suits are clearly barred by virtue of Section 151 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience). The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision in Sri Rama Sri Kanyakaparameswari Srinagareswara Swamy Varla Alayamulu v. Jampa Satyanarayana and others 2005 (4) ALT 435. Reliance also was placed on the decision in Sri Sanjeeva Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rajahmundry v. Thokkula Dasaradharamayya and another W.A.No.1207 of 2008 dt.25.11.2008 and certain submissions were made relating to the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a suit of this nature. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to certain subsequent events and further pointed out to Sections 82 and 83 of the Act aforesaid and also order XXXIX Rule 1 of the C