N.K. Patil, J.--Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. Petitioners assailing the validity of the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet dated 11.7.2002 in Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001, have presented this revision petition.

3. The Respondent herein filed O.S. No. 20 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Harapanahalli for a declaration that he is a hereditary Archaka of Sri Guru Madhwa Temple of Gurumadhwa Mutt at Harapanahalli and also sought consequential injunction restraining the Petitioners herein from interfering with the alleged hereditary right. Ex-parte injunction was refused. The Petitioners appeared and contested the suit denying the alleged right of the Respondent. The trial Court, after hearing the interim application for Temporary Injunction, rejected the same by its order dated 10.9.1998. The Respondent-Plaintiff filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet. The appellate Court by its order dated 23.1.1999 allowed the said appeal in part and granted an injunction and further held that the Archakship or the performance of the Pooja shall also be directly under the supervision and control of the Petitioners-Samithi. Against the said order passed by the appellate Court, the Petitioners herein had filed the Civil Revision Petition No. 567 of 1999. This Court after hearing both parties passed the order dated 18.8.2000 dismissing the said revision petition. When things thus stood, after dismissal of the revision petition filed by the Petitioners, the Respondent filed Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001 on 4.7.2001 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1999 under Sections 151 and 152 Code of Civil Procedure on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet. In the said application, the Respondent prayed for amendment of the directions in the decree drafted by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet dated 23.1.1999. The Petitioners filed their objections contending that the Miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent is not maintainable. However, after hearing both the parties, the Court has allowed the said application, Miscellaneous Case No. 40 of 2001 filed by the Respondent by its order dated 11.7.2002. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hospet, the Petitioners have presented this revision petition.

4. The principal submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the request of the Respondent considered by the trial Court is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and the order passed by this Court. He vehemently contended that this Court by its order dated 18.8.2000 in Civil Revision Petition No. 567 of 1999 has specifically stated that the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court is to the effect that the Respondent-Plaintiff is permitted to continue his work as archak of the said institution under the direct supervision and control of Petitioner-1, Samithi, pending final disposal of the suit. Therefore, he submitted that when this Court has confirmed the order passed by the appellate Court and has clarified in unequivocal terms that the Respondent should perform his day to day Pooja under the direct supervision and control of the Petitioner No. 1-Samithi, the trial Court was in error in passing a perverse order and the said order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable in the eye of law. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Sri La Sri Ajabanatessara Pandara Sannadhi, Hereditary Madathipathi and Atheenakarthar of Velakurichi Mutt and Hereditary Managing Trustee of Sri Agneeswaraswami Devasthanam, Tiruppugalur and Sri Rudrapatheeswara Devasthanam Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, (1967) 80 LW 576 , wherein it has been held that the trial Court cannot amend a decree where it has been appealed against and the same had m