( 1 ) THE appellant in M. F. A. 348/69 is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 11/69 in the court of the Civil Judge, Udipi, SK. In the said suit, he prayed for a declaration that the alleged appointment of the first defendant by the fourth defendant as his successor to the Palimar Mutt of Udipi was illegal and void, that the first defendant has not become one of the Swamiars of the ashta Mutts of Udipi and hence was not entitled to enter the 'garbha griha' or Sanctum Sanctorum and periorm the Puja to the idol of Lord krishna or to perform the Pariyayam of the Krishna Mutt for a period of two years commencing on or about 17th January 1970. He prayed that a permanent injunction be granted restraining the first defendant from doing all or any of the things and also for grant of an injunction against defendants 2 and 3 from allowing the first defendant in doing so. In the said suit, he also prayed for grant of a mandatory injunction against the third defendant either to ordain and appoint a suitable Bala-Brahmachari as per the custom and usage as the Matadhipathi of the Phalimar Mutt, or to take upon himself and perform the next Pariyayam; and if for any reason the third defendant fails to do so, to ask or permit defendants 5 to 8 or the plaintiff, to perform the same; and grant a permanent injunction, restraining defendants 1 to 3 from interfering in any manner with the party so chosen out of defendants 5 to 8 and the plaintiff, from duly performing the said Pariyayam. After filing the suit, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. I praying that a temporary injunction may be granted restraining the first defendant from entering the Garbha Griha and performing puja in the plaint Mutt and also from performing the Pariyayam commencing from 17-1-1970. The learned Civil Judge did not grant the order of temporary injunction prayed for. This appeal is directed against the said order of the learned Civil Judge refusing to grant the temporary injunction.

( 2 ) THE appellants in M. F. A. No. 349/69 are defendants 5 to 8 in the said suit. Respondents 1 to 6 are defendents 1 to 4 and 9 and the plaintiff. In this appeal also defendants 5 to 8 challenge the said order of the learned Civil Judge refusing to grant the temporary injunction prayed for in I. A. No. 1 in the said suit O. S. 11|69.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, during the course of this judgment, the parties will be referred to by the designations given to them in O. S No. 11/69.

( 4 ) AS both the appeals arise out of the same order passed on LA. No. 1, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment.

( 5 ) SRI H. B. Datar, learned counsel for defendant 1 (Respondent 1 in both the appeals) raised a preliminary objection that the said appeals cannot be heard as the notice issued to respondent 4 had not yet been returned. It is argued that on a Memo filed on behalf of the appellants, this Court passed a Judicial order that respondent 4 may continue in the appeals. It is contended that the said order is binding and the Court cannot go behind the said order and unless respondent 4 is served, these appeals cannot be heard.

( 6 ) AS respondent 4 was not served in both the appeals, a Memo was filed by the appellants that notice to respondent 4 may be dispensed with as he was not represented in the lower Court. On the said Memo, this court passed an order on 18-11-1969 directing that respondent 4' may continue. Thereafter, on 3rd December 1969 the appellant in MFA. 348/69 filed I. A. No. II stating that the order of the lower Court on LA. I was passed without service of notice on respondent 4 and he was not a party to the said order and hence it was not necessary for him to be impleaded in this appeal. It is also stated that no relief is prayed tor as against respondent 4. The appellant has further stated that he withdraws the appeal against the 4th respondent and the appeal as against him may be dismissed. No orders were passed on this application. When the appeals came up for hearing before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document