SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, R.Poornima, JJ
Ayyakannu – Appellant
Versus
S.Marimuthu – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.805 of 2026|CMP(MD)No.6629 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.Ramanathan, M.Suresh
For the Respondents: R.Sankar Ganesh, R.Ghandiraj, T.Senthil Kumar

An appellate court will generally decline to entertain an appeal against an ad interim or interlocutory order passed in a pending writ petition, especially when final judgment is reserved, as such matters should be adjudicated in the final order of the main petition.

Headnote:The present writ appeal challenges an interim order passed in a writ petition concerning a dispute over a temple festival and the right to conduct a procession with a new deity. The Appellants sought interference against an order permitting a respondent to conduct a procession, claiming infringement of temple customs and seeking equal participation. The court examined the nature of the impugned order, which was an ad interim direction granted while reserving judgment in the main proceedings. The core issue is whether a writ appeal is maintainable against an ad interim order passed during the reservation of judgment in a writ petition. The court observed that entertaining an appeal against an ad interim order, particularly when the main writ petition is awaiting final adjudication, is inappropriate. Reasoning that the grant of temporary permission to a respondent for a procession does not prejudice the rights of the parties in the main petition, the court declined to interfere at the interlocutory stage. The writ appeal is disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Table of Content
1. maintainability of writ appeal regarding temple custom disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. the court will not interfere with ad interim orders passed while reserving judgment in a main writ petition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.)

This writ appeal is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated

07.05.2026 made in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2710 of 2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that in essence, the custom prevalent in the temple is in question and therefore, the writ appeal is maintainable.

3. Considering the said submissions, we are also of the view that nothing criminal in nature about the instant proceedings and therefore, the writ appeal is maintainable.

4. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is without giving an opportunity to the petitioners who are directly aggrieved by the direction to permit procession by a new separate deity. The deity that is there in the petitioners’ temple is only to be used. Even the petitioners are willing for a joint conduct of the festival.

5. The learned counsel taking notice on behalf of the first respondent would submit that it was never permitted and only because the petitioners and their village people are neither giving the deity nor allowing the petitioners to conduct the procession with the separate deity, the interim order has been passed.

6. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

7. At the outset, it can be seen that the interim direction has been granted while reserving the matters for orders. Therefore, the entire issue will be considered only in the final judgment that is to be passed by the learned Judge. It would be inappropriate to entertain this writ appeal arising out of this ad interim order that was passed at the time of reserving orders. Considering the festival as far as this year is concerned, suffice it to observe that merely because the first respondent is permitted to conduct the procession with a separate deity that will not prejudice the parties one way or the other in the main writ petition.

8. The writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top