Disposed

Pulavarthy Ayyanna v. Sri Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam

Telangana HC1 Aug 2017CMA/794/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses maintainability of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an ex parte order of the Endowments Tribunal. The court directs the petitioner to approach the Tribunal first to set aside the ex parte order under specific Rules, staying the impugned order pending such application.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file application to set aside ex parte order before Tribunal within 3 weeks; impugned order stayed.

Pulavarthy Ayyanna Vs Sri Malleswara… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.794 of 2017

¶2

JUDGMENT :

¶3

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 84 (2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987) by the unsuccessful respondent No.1 is directed against the order and decree dated 21.06.2017 passed by the learned Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Amaravathi, Pedakakani, in O.A.No.689 of 2016.

¶4

At the stage of admission, I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner/respondent in the aforesaid O.A. as well as Smt. K. Lalitha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – Temple on caveat and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner would bring to the notice of this Court that the order impugned is an exparte order and submits as follows:

¶6

“The petitioner has got voluminous documentary evidence, including the documents of title, Pattadar Pass Book and copies of Pahanis, evidencing his possession and enjoyment over the subject property. Even according to the admitted case of the 1^st respondent – Temple, the petitioner

¶7

2 MSRM,J C.M.A.No.794 of 2017

¶8

is using the subject land along with other lands for Pissi-culture by converting the land into a Fish Tank. In the circumstances stated in the affidavit, in detail, he remained exparte. He is prepared to file appropriate application before the Tribunal to set aside the said exparte order, which the law permits. Hence, an opportunity may be given to him to contest the O.A. on merits by granting him a reasonable time and protecting his interest until such time.”

¶9

Smt. K. Lalitha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, while supporting the orders of the Tribunal, forcibly contended that the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal as per the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Tribunal Rules, 2010 (for brevity “the Tribunal Rules”) seeking to set aside the exparte order, which is impugned in this appeal, instead of approaching this Court directly and that, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and liable for dismissal.

¶10

I have given detailed and earnest consideration to the facts & circumstances and I have perused Rule 11(3) of the Tribunal Rules.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and submissions and the legal position obtaining, this Court is satisfied that this appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission with appropriate directions.

¶12

3 MSRM,J C.M.A.No.794 of 2017

¶13

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal and file appropriate application/s for setting aside the exparte order dated 21.06.2017 in O.A.No.689 of 2016 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that on the petitioner filing any such application/s, the Tribunal shall give an opportunity to the 1^st respondent – Temple as well as the 2^nd respondent and shall decide the same on merits, strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law. Till the petitioner files such application/s, as directed in this order, the order impugned shall remain stayed.

¶14

It is needless to mention that the Tribunal is at liberty to grant any orders of stay, if sought for by the petitioner, during the pendency of the application/s now directed to be filed within three weeks. It is made clear that on failure of the petitioner to file application/s, as directed in this order, the order impugned shall be enforced in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶15

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16