1

  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

of  the  High  Court  modified  the  order  dated

28.07.2008  in  I.A.  No.2907/88  granting  stay  and

2

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

3

(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.

4

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