The court held that interim relief must be granted based on merit evaluation, and not merely on urgency, necessitating a proper hearing of both parties before the Tribunal.

ORDER :

R Raghunandan Rao, J.

The present dispute relates to the right to perform Archakhatvam and other services in a temple dedicated to Sri Parupudi Kanaka Chintaiah, Veeramma Thalli. The Archakhatvam services and other incidental services are said to be performed by members belonging to the Parupudi family. On account of certain disputes within the various branches of this family, O.S.No.18 of 1969 came to be filed before the learned II Additional Sub- ordinate Judge, Vijayawada. This suit ended in a compromise, which was recorded and thereafter, Judgment and decree was passed on the basis of the said compromise, on 22.09.1979.

2. The respondents herein, on the basis of the said compromise decree, claiming inheritance of the rights which were recorded in favour of late Sri Parupudi Krishna Murthy, had approached the Endowments Tribunal, by way of O.A.No.78 of 2025, contending that they were not being permitted to conduct Archakhatvam services, etc., in terms of the said Judgment and decree, dated 22.09.1979. The respondents have also filed I.A.No.375 of 2025, seeking an injunction restraining the other parties to O.A.No.78 of 2025, from interfering with their conduct of Archakhatvam services and other services in the temple. It appears that the respondents had also moved this Court, by way of W.P.No.20075 of 2025, for an early disposal of the said Interlocutory Application. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 04.08.2025, had disposed of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of I.A.No.375 of 2025, not later than four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The Endowments Tribunal, thereafter, passed orders, on 13.11.2025, partly allowing the application with interim relief being granted to the respondents and with a further direction to the respondents 2 to 25, in O.A.No.78 of 2025, not to restrain the respondents herein from exercising their legitimate rights and customs from 30.11.2025 to 24.01.2026. The respondent No.18, in the Original Application, being aggrieved by the said order, has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. It may also be recorded that the petitioner is the son of the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.18 of 1969.

5. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Phani Viswanath Challa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri T. V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4.

6. Both the learned Senior Counsel have taken this Court through the decree passed in O.S.No.18 of 1969 as well as the Original Application filed by the respondents and the orders passed by the Endowments Tribunal. This Court does not propose to go into these issues, in view of the reasons set out below.

7. The Tribunal disposed of I.A.No.375 of 2025 in the following terms:

“7. Having verified the facts and circumstances, and in view of the Court’s directive for expeditious disposal, this Tribunal is constrained to partly allow this I.A. without adjudicating on merits. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted interim relief, and respondents 2 to 25 are directed not to restrain the petitioners from exercising their legitimate rights and customs for the period from 30^th November, 2025 to 24^th January, 2026, to which they are supposed to be entitled as per established usage and were in the enjoyment prior to the dispute arising.”

8. In this paragraph, the Tribunal states that it has not gone into the merits of the case while passing the order. Such an admission of the Tribunal is sufficient to set aside the order impugned in the Revision Petition.

9. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside the order of the Tribunal, dated 13.11.2025, in I.A.No.375 of 2025, in O.A.No.78 of 2025 and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, for passing orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides and by way of an order containing reas