AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
The petitioners challenges the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 25B (6) (iii) of the HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997, (for short, 'Act, 1997') by which, Nagesh Murthy, the deceased husband of the petitioner No.1 and M.P.Jagadeesh Murthy were given the rights to perform pooja for a term of 4 months each.
Heard Sri Ravishankar A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.1 counsel, and Sri Harish K.S. learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3..
The petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased Nagesh Murthy and petitioner No.2 is the adopted son of petitioner No.1 and deceased Nagesh Murthy. Against the order passed under Section 25B of the Act, 1997, an efficacious remedy of appeal is provided under Section 25(B) (7) of the Act, 1997 to the Commission for endowment.
Since the matter involves disputed question of facts, the petitioner having preferred the present petition without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 25(B) of the Act, 1997, the instant petition is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under sub-section 8 of Section 25(B) of the Act, 1997. If such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority to consider the application for grant of interim order within two weeks from the date of presentation of the appeal.
The time spent in prosecuting this petition shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation.
Hand delivery Ordered.