Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.5813 OF 2009
B. Muthukrishnan(Dead) by L.Rs. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
S.T. Reddiar Educational &
Charitable Trust & Ors. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.5814 OF 2009
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the order
dated 20.08.2008 passed by the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam in I.A. No.3280 of 2008 in
R.F.A. No.474 of 2008 by which the Division Bench
Signature Not Verified
of the High Court modified the order dated
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2018.03.31
10:20:28 IST
Reason:
28.07.2008 in I.A. No.2907/88 granting stay and
1
the order dated 30.10.2008 in I.A. No.4422 of 2008
in R.F.A. No.474 of 2008 by which the High Court
dismissed the application filed by the appellants
herein for reconsidering the order dated 20.08.2008.
2. Keeping in view the nature of order that we are
passing for disposal of these appeals, it is not
necessary to set out the facts much less in detail.
3. The impugned order reads as under:
“The interim stay is modified. The judgment
of the Courts below directing the framing of a
scheme is in respect of the trust properties
‘A’ to ‘D’ including the temple(C Schedule).
Though it is contended by the appellant that
there is no mis-management as regards the
properties are concerned, evidently, in the
temple, at present no rituals, poojas etc. are
conducted. In such circumstances, we vacate
the stay with respect to any interim
arrangements to be made for the revival of
the temple poojas. The interim stay will
continue only in respect of other properties.
It is open to the respondents to move any
application before the Courts below for such
temporary arrangements.”
4. It is not in dispute that the impugned orders
are interim in nature having been passed in pending
Regular First Appeal filed by the defendants
2
(respondents herein) against the judgment and
decree dated 11.03.2008 passed by the Trial Court
in O.S. No.1 of 2003, which decreed the plaintiffs
(appellants’) suit. It is also not in dispute that the
first appeal out of which these appeals arise in
which the impugned orders were passed is still
pending for its final disposal.
5. In a situation where the impugned orders are
interim in nature and when the first appeal in
which such impugned orders were passed is still
pending for its final disposal in the High Court, it
would be in the interest of all the parties to the
appeal that the appeal itself be disposed of finally
on merits.
6. So far as the legality of the impugned orders is
concerned, suffice it to say, it being interim in
nature, we do not consider it proper to interfere in
such orders.
3
7. However, it will be open to the parties to
approach the High Court to apply for further
modification of the orders and depending upon a
case, the High Court is free to pass appropriate
order in accordance with law.
8. We request the High Court to expeditiously
dispose of the appeal on merits preferably within six
months from the date of this order.
9. With these observations and liberty, the
appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
………...................................J.
[R. K. AGRAWAL]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
February 23, 2018
4