Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
V.Chitambaresh, J.
Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji —Petitioner
versus
Raghavendra Thirtha Swami & Ors. —Respondents
Tr.P (C) No.496 of 2014 & I.A.No.17447 of 2013 IN OP(C) No.256 of 2013
Decided on 12.8.2015
For the Petitioner:Sri.R.Venkataramani (Senior Advocate), Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, Smt. R. Ranjini, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Sri.T.Krishnan Unni, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Director General Of Prosecution Sri.T.Asaf Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3: Sri.P.Chandrasekhara Pillai, SC For C.B.I.
For the Respondent Nos.4 to R12:Sri.B.Krishnamani, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of decree cannot pervade beyond local limits of jurisdiction of District Court taking note of court which passed original decree.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Sections 24(1)(b)(i), 39(4) and 42(2)(a)—Execution of decree—Territorial jurisdiction of court—Execution of decree cannot pervade beyond local limits of jurisdiction of District Court taking note of court which passed original decree—Local limits of jurisdiction of executing court cannot be enlarged by withdrawing execution petition pending in court below to High Court—High Court can always monitor execution proceedings pending in court below in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution. (Para 7)
Result: Transfer petition dismissed and I.A. allowed.
V.Chitambaresh, J.—An elusive ‘Swamiji’ literally makes the decree holder run from pillar to post. He remains invisible to the Amin and the State Police. The entire machinery of the State is at crossroads.
2. The dispute between two pontiffs of Shri Kashi Math Samsthan to wrest its control and administration could not be amicably settled despite intervention by devotees. This lead to filing of a suit numbered as O.S.No.34/2000 on the file of the court of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati wherein the junior pontiff was camping. The junior pontiff was the second plaintiff and the senior pontiff was the first defendant of the first plaintiff Samsthan in the suit wherein a counter claim was laid. The suit for declaration that the second plaintiff is the Madathipathi of the first plaintiff Samsthan and for consequential injunction was dismissed. The counter claim was decreed restraining the second plaintiff by an injunction from interfering with the administration of the Samsthan by the first defendant. The second plaintiff was further directed therein to hand over all the deities and other articles belonging to the Samsthan to the first defendant. The deities and articles were specified by amending the decree by order in I.A.No.168/2010 on the basis of an inventory report of the Advocate Commissioner. It is this amended decree in the counter claim in O.S.No.34/2000 that is put into execution by the first defendant to which one objection after another is being raised.
3. E.P.No.18/2009 was first filed on the file of the court of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati whereupon the second plaintiff contended that he has shifted his camp to Ernakulam. The decree was therefore transmitted to the court of the District Judge, Ernakulam and later made over to the court of the I Additional District Judge, Ernakulam. E.P.No.167/2011 was accordingly filed in the transferee court to get back the deities and other articles comprising of gold jewelery studded with diamonds, emeralds, blue sapphire etc. The objection as regards the jurisdiction of the transferee court was turned down in Srimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swamy v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji, 2011 (4) KLT 265.. The objection as regards the executability of the decree was turned down in Srimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swamy v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji, 2012 (2) KLT 444. The grant of police aid to execute the decree in E.P.No.167/2011 is concluded by Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji v. Raghavendra Thirtha Swamiji, 2013 (2) KLT 203. The operative part of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
a) The I.G. Of police, Central Range is directed to constitute a team of police officers who shall render necessary assistance to the Amin appointed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ernakulam to trace, arrest and produce the respondent before the said Court.
b) Such police team shall assist the Amin appointed by the learned Additional District Judge to trace the paraphernalia and other items which are required to be delivered over to the petitioner as per the decree in the case and to produce the same in the said Court.
c) It is made clear that the above order is only to the effect that the police shall assist the Amin in discharge of his duties as aforesaid, within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of learned I Additional District Court, Ernakulam. (emphasis supplied)
4. It has inter alia been stated in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment afore-quoted in disposal of OP(C) No.256/2013 as follows:-
Having regard to the manner in which respondent has conducted himself with respect to the orders passed by the executing court, there is no reasonable possibility of the Amin executing that warrant of arrest.
This was precisely why the Inspector General of Police, Central Range was directed to constitute a team of police officers to assist the Amin ‘to trace, arrest and produce’ the second plaintiff in court. I.A.No.17447/2013 has been filed to re-open
