“6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the second respondent has now passed the impugned order denovo. In the denovo proceedings, as mentioned in the beginning of this order, the impugned order has given certain innocuous directions to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot have any complaint as the petitioner has been asked to merely maintain accounts and file appropriate documents regarding the assets of the temple etc. Therefore, to that extent, there cannot be any interference by the petitioner either before this Court or before appellate authority or revisional authority under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. However, asking the petitioner to work out an alternate remedy once again before the civil Court prima facie appears to be beyond the powers vested with the second respondent Joint Commissioner inasmuch as the suit filed by the petitioner’s grandfather and granduncle in O.S.No.407 of 1980 has conclusively decided the issue. Similarly, the direction in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order asking for a meeting of the members to appoint a hereditary trustee also appears to prima facie contrary to the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.407 of 1980.
