Worshippers may represent deities in execution proceedings when shebaits act adversely to the deity’s interests.

The litigation originated 66 years ago in 1960 involving the Deity "Shree Shree Radha Krishna" at Thakurbari, Imphal

Two cross-suits (O.S. No. 1 of 1974 and O.S. No. 2 of 1974) resulted in a common judgment dated 30.11.1974.

In O.S. No. 1, Purnananda Sharma (predecessor of the Petitioners) was declared a co-shebait. However, in O.S. No. 2, the court decreed the recovery of possession of temple property in favor of the Deity, specifically directing the demolition of all structures standing thereon

In 2012, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, acting as a worshipper and next friend of the Deity, filed Execution Case No. 9 of 2012 to enforce the decree for possession

The Petitioners (Judgment Debtors and legal heirs of Purnananda Sharma) challenged the execution, asserting that a worshipper—who was not a party to the original suit—could not represent the Deity in execution

The Executing Court, via an order dated 14.05.2025, overruled the objections, holding the Deity to be in the position of a minor representable by a worshipper

The Petitioners challenged this order under Article 227

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, affirming that supervisory jurisdiction is available when an order is not appealable and that the "alternative remedy" rule is a matter of judicial discretion rather than an absolute bar

Hindu Idol is a juridical person holding the status of a minor

while a Shebait normally represents the Deity, a worshipper may act as a "next friend" if the Shebait is negligent or acts prejudicially to the Deity’s interests (Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy v. Konduru Seshu Reddy (1966) and Bishwanath v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji (1967))

A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007) to emphasize the court's duty to protect religious endowments

The court first rejected the maintainability objection, finding that the impugned order was not appealable under Section 99A or Order XXI Rules 98-103 of the CPC

the court observed that the Petitioners were the legal heirs of the party against whom the decree for recovery of possession was passed

Since the Petitioners (as purported Shebaits) were actively resisting the Deity’s recovery of property, their interests were fundamentally adverse to the Deity

Following Bishwanath, the court reasoned that an Idol is left "in a lurch" when its legal representative is the guilty party; therefore, a worshipper must be permitted to represent the "minor" Idol to prevent irreparable injury to the endowment

Regarding the demolition of structures, the court examined the 1974 decree and found it explicitly mandated "delivery of possession... by demolishing all the structures"

Consequently, the Executing Court did not exceed its jurisdiction but merely enforced the literal terms of the decree

The Court held that a worshipper is competent to act as a next friend for an Idol in execution proceedings when the Shebaits’ interests are adverse to the Deity

The court further held that enforcing a decree for possession via demolition is valid if specifically provided for in the decree

All interim orders were vacated