1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA O.A.NO.606 OF 2011 IN C.S.NO.68 OF 1995 1.T.Duraibabu residing at No.26, Veerabadran Street, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. 2.V.Ganapathy residing at No.91, South Mada Street, Villivakkam, Madras-600 049. ... Plaintiffs -Versus- 1.Sri Sundara Vinayagar, Sri Selva Vinayagar and Sri Anjaneyar Devasthanams, rep. by its Managing Trustee P.S.Munusamy Office at No.87, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. 2.Salivahana Vamsa Munnetra Sangam rep. by its President C.Pantalu Chettiar. Office at No.89, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. 3. P.S.Munuswamy Office at No.87, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Madras-4. 4.N.Bhupathy residing at No.27, Veera Perumal Mudali Street, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.K.Ganesan residing at No.2, Veerabadra Street, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. 6.U.Purushothaman residing at No.87/1, Veera Perumal Mudali Street, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. 7.K.Srinivasalu residing at Veera Vanchinathan Street, Perambur, Madras-11. 8.C.Pantalu Chetty residing at No.160, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. 9. Bank of Madura Ltd., Royapettah High Road Branch rep. by its Branch Manager Office at No.200/1, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. 10. Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch rep. by its Branch Manager at No.129, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore Madras-600 004. ..Defendants A.No.606 of 2011:- 1.P.Karthikeyan 2.K.Kalpana both are residing at No.1, Veera Perumal Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. ..Applicants/Third Party VS Sri Sundara Vinayagar, Sri Selva Vinayagar and Sri Anjaneya Devasthanam is represented by its Chairman N.Bhupathi ..Respondent/1st defendant Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent from removing or replacing or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 erasing the stone Tablet or part thereof comprising of the names of the donors or for instance the names of the trustees inscribed in the stone Tablet affixed at Sri Selva Vinayagar Temple. This Original Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing the court made the following order: The applicants have filed this application in C.S.No.68 of 1995, which was finally disposed off on 03.11.1995, with prayer for grant of interim injunction, restraining respondents from removing, replacing or erasing the stone Tablet or part thereof, comprising of the names of the donors / trustees inscribed thereon. 2. The stone Tablets are implanted to be affixed at Shri Selva Vinayagar Temple. C.S.No.68 ofd 1995 was filed by one T.Durai Babu and another for removal of trustees, i.e. defendant nos.3 to 7 in the original suit. Prayer was also made for framing of a scheme of management appended to three temples. 3. The suit was disposed off finally on 03.11.1995, by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, by framing a Scheme of Management for appointment of Trustees. The Hon'ble Division Bench also appointed a Receiver to conduct the election. 4. This application is a classic example of misuse of process of this Court. It is not understood how an interim application for grant of injunction can be filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 in a suit, which stood disposed off on 03.11.1995. Parties in this application and the suit are also different. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants, in support of this application, vehemently contended that as the Scheme of Management and appointment of Trustees was framed by this Court in C.S.No.68 of 1995, the application, for interim injunction by the parties aggrieved by any action of trustees, would lie in this Court only. 6. This contention is totally misconceived. This Court, in exercise of power under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure had framed a scheme of management and appointment of Trustees. After disposal of the suit, no application, as the one framed, would be competent in the Court. 7. This Court, merely by framing a scheme, does not get any administrative control or regulatory control over Trustees appointed under the scheme to regulate their future working. 8. Any party aggrieved by the action of the Trustees, who are not a Trust or management of the Temple can give fresh cause of action to maintain the suit, but no application, like the one, filed by the applicants, is competent in this Court. 9. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Board of Trustees of the Temple https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 had earlier permitted fixing of stone Tablets, displaying names of the donors / Trustees, but subsequently, they are trying to remove it, which is not allowed. 10. This contention again is not sustainable in law, as the violation of action of the Trustees cannot relate back to the filing of suit nor it would have any concern with the decree passed by this Court. The applicants will have to make out a case to challenge the action, as interlocutory application can deal with the interim prayers, pending the suit. 11. It is well settled law that the relief, which cannot be finally granted, while passing a final decree, cannot be granted by way of interim relief. Interestingly, in this case, there is no final relief to be granted, as the suit itself stood decreed as back as on 03.11.1995. 12. Consequently, this application, being misconceived and misuse of process of Court, is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. Sd/-V.K.S.J 09.11.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2012. R.s/31.01.2012 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/