Sri Renuka C @ Renuka Sharma @ Renuka Shastri Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI RENUKA C @ RENUKA SHARMA @ RENUKA SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O SRI POOJARI CHIKKAIAH, R/AT KEREMEGALADODDI VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 138.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. HARI PRASAD M.S., ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SRI. GIRIDHAR S V, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶19

SRI SANNAKKIRAYA SWAMY DEVASTANADA

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:2093 WP No. 4988 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ABHIRUDDI SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (REGD.) DODDARISINAKERE GRAMA, CHIKKARISINAKERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422 (KARNATAKA STATE TRUST ACT OF 1956 AND 1982). REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDER TRUSTEE AND PRESIDENT, SRI JAYAPRAKASHA GOWDA.

¶24

SRI. UMESH S/O LATE DODDAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADARAHALLI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422.

¶25

&RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K.S. RAGHURAM.,ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 28.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE R-3 HEREIN TO APPOINT SRI.RENUKA SHARMA, A KURUBA COMMUNITY QUALIFIED PRIEST AS THE PRIEST OF SRI.SANNAKKIRAYA SWAMY TEMPLE, DODDARISINAKERE VILLAGE, C.A HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT AND TO EXTEND ALL PROTECTION TO HIM FROM RESPONDENTS OF MISC. OF 04/2021.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2093 WP No. 4988 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This petition is filed seeking quash of Annexure-A, an order dated 28.09.2022 passed by respondent No.3.

¶34

Dispute is with regard to the appointment of Archaka in respect of Sri.Sannakkiraya Swamy Temple, Doddarisinakere Village, C.A.Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District.

¶35

Perusal of the order at Annexure-A indicate that the same has been passed in terms of the interim order dated 23.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.16035/2022. The said order reads as under:

¶36

"These writ petitions arise out of the proceedings under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contentions urged in these writ petitions are that the Principal District Court without considering the application for grant of leave to file a suit, has proceeded to pass interlocutory orders. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners before the trial Court submits that the trial Court is recording evidence on the application for grant of leave and since disposal of the said miscellaneous petition is likely to get delayed, the Court has granted interim relief. A reading of Section 92 of CPC makes it clear that the Court can grant interlocutory orders only after leave to institute a suit is granted. Rule 16-A of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 prescribes the procedure for disposal of the petitions under Section 92 of CPC and the same is extracted below:

¶37

"16-A).(1) An application, seeking leave of the Court to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code, shall be made by two or more persons having an interest in the trust.

¶38

(2) Such an application shall be accompanied by a copy of

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:2093 WP No. 4988 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the plaint proposed to be filed.

¶43

(3) Such an application shall be treated as an independent and substantive application and be designated as Miscellaneous petition.

¶44

(4) An application seeking leave to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code, shall, be disposed of by the Principal Judge or in his absence the senior most Judge of the Court after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants:

¶45

Provided that if the Court considers necessary to hear the opposite party also, the Court may order issue of notice to the opposite party and pass orders on the application after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶46

(5) When the leave is granted by the Court as sought for, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date of filing of Miscellaneous petition, provided persons who have obtained leave, pay the requisite Court fee on the plaint within the time granted by the Court."

¶47

The Rules therefore indicate that the Court "after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants" and if necessary, "to hear the opposite party also" pass orders on the application. The procedure adopted in the present case by the District Court is strangely not sanctioned under the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967. Neither the petitioners nor the respondents were able to point out any corresponding provision which enjoins the District Court to record evidence before grant for leave to file a suit under Section 92 of CPC.

¶48

Notwithstanding the above, since the application for leave is now pending consideration before the Principal District Court, it is appropriate that the Principal District Court is directed to consider and dispose off the application filed seeking leave to file a suit under Section 92 of CPC in accordance with Rules 16-A of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967. It is needless to mention that the Court while doing so, shall strictly confine to the limits of Section 92 of CPC. The trial Court is directed to dispose off the said application within a period of three months from the next date of hearing.

¶49

List these writ petitions after consideration of the application filed by the respondents for grant of leave. In the meanwhile, the Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk, is directed to keep open the temple and the sanctum sanctorum (Garbha

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2093 WP No. 4988 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Gruha) for devotees to visit and also ensure adequate protection within the precincts of the temple and that there is no commotion or unrest by the trustees or any persons claiming under trustees, in any manner whatsoever. Office is directed to issue appropriate intimation to the Tahsildar of Maddur Taluk. In the meanwhile, the person who is presently performing the pooja at the temple shall continue to do so, until further orders from the Court.

¶53

The aforesaid writ petition in W.P.No.16035/2022

¶54

along with other two connected writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court by Order dated 21.03.2024 which reads as under:

¶55

"Sri.Sunil S. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that these writ petitions have become infructuous in view of the rejection of the application for leave to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.

¶56

2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Trust submits that this Court had passed an adhoc arrangement to ensure that the temple is kept open by directing respondent-Trust to handover the keys of the temple to the Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk. Accordingly, the keys were handed over to the Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk. He submits that now that the petition was under Section 92 of the CPC is rejected, the Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk, may be directed to return the keys. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-Trust deserves acceptance as the petition under Section 92 of the CPC is rejected and the Civil Court felt that there was no need to pass any orders under Section 92 of the CPC.

¶57

3. In that view of the matter, the Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk is directed to return all the keys of the temple to the person from whom he took them, within two weeks from today. This is, however, subject to the condition that the person who receive the keys from the Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk shall keep open the temple for the devotees to enter and offer their prayers without any obstruction.

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:2093 WP No. 4988 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed, but subject to the above."

¶62

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that

¶63

pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21.03.2024. Keys of the temple have been handed over along with pooja articles and other things to the trust-"Sri.Sannakkiraya Swamy Devastanada Abhivruddi Seva Samithi Trust (Regd.)", - represented by its founder Trustee and President Sri.Jayaprakasha Gowda which is not disputed by the petitioner.

¶64

In that view of the matter nothing remains for adjudication in this petition. As already noted the impugned order was passed by the respondent-Tahsildar only as an interim arrangement subject to the final result of said petition. In view of the order dated 21.03.2024, impugned order at Annexure-A has worked itself out.

¶65

At the juncture, learned counsel for petitioner seeks liberty to file a fresh application or requisition before the aforesaid trust seeking appointment to the post of Archaka.

¶66