“We avail this opportunity to direct the Government of India to maintain all national monuments under the respective Acts referred to above and to ensure that all of them are properly maintained so that the cultural and historical heritage of India and the beauty and grandeur of the monuments, sculptures secured through breathless and passionate labour workmanship, craftsmanship and the skills of the Indian architects, artists and masons is continued to be preserved.” - So said the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2766 (Rajeev Mankotia v. Secretary to the President of India and Others).

1.1. Contending that the expectation and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be implemented/fulfilled if the illegal order of injunction is allowed to perpetuate, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant in the suit.

2. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the Fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.445 of 2014 in O.S.No.49 of 2014 dated 16.06.2014, making the interim injunction already granted absolute till the disposal of the suit.

2.1. The order passed on 16.06.2014 reads as under: “Counter of R1 and R2/SMD: Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. R1 present during calling hours. Called absent, subsequently, when the matter was called again at 12.00 p.m. And 01.00 p.m. R1 and R2 not present. No representation for both. Counter not filed. Hence, R1 and R2 set exparte.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Records perused. On facts and circumstances of the case, interim injunction already granted is made absolute till the disposal of the suit. Petition closed.”

3. Ad-interim exparte order of injunction has been granted on 10.03.2014. This injunction has been granted till 14.03.2014.

4. This order of injunction was extended till 28.04.2014 for a period of 45 days, which is against the provisions of order 39 rule 3A C.P.C. and that this extension is stated to have been made despite objections made for the extension of injunction order.

4.1. The defendants filed CRP before the Hon'ble High Court in CRP.No.1782 of 2014 and after hearing both sides, the High Court on 09.06.2014, though dismissed the CRP, but, directed the learned Principal District Munsif, to dispose of I.A.No.445 of 2014,including the issue regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court, within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of the order

5. The interim injunction granted is to the effect that the right of the petitioners and the general public to install/place idol and to offer worship from 8.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m., in the suit premises, namely, at Venkatramana Temple should not be interfered with.

6. The prayer in the plaint did not speak any thing about installation or placing of any idol inside the temple. The prayer is that the right to worship from 8.00 a.m. To 05.00 p.m. At Venkatramana Temple should not be interfered with. In fact, in para-8 of the plaint, it is stated that if Section 80 C.P.C. Notice is given, the defendants would remove the idols from the temple and therefore, petition has been filed to dispense with notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Pointing out that there is critical difference and relevance in the relief claimed in the plaint and the relief granted in the injunction order and that would justify filing of the petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

7. The other contentions raised with reference to illegal exercise of jurisdiction in granting the order of injunction as well as making the order absolute are as follows:

(i) The suit property is a non-idol/non-worship/non-living temple monument coming under the purview of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act 24 of 1958.

(ii) The grant of adjournment for 45 days, and thereby extending the order of injunction is illegal when the law enjoins the Court to dispose of the injunction petition within a period of 30 days.