SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.P. Singh and S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3058 of 2000. D/d. 13.4.2005.

Swamy Atmanada - Appellant

Versus

Swami Bodhanada and others - Respondents

For the Appellant :- K. Sukumaran, K. Ramamoorthy, L. N. Rao, Sr. Advocates, Dr. A. Francis Julian, Sumit Kumar, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co., Advocates, M. A. Chinnasamy, Mrs. N. Shobha, Sriram Thalapathy, N. K. Arulmuruganandham, Vikas Mehta, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Mamata Choudhary, P. Neduchezian, C. Paramashivam, R. Ayyam Perumal, Sewa Ram, S. Vallinayagam, Satya Mitra Garg, Advocates.

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Mandamus - Execution of decree - A decree passed by Civil Court must be passed in terms of provision contained in Civil Procedure Code - Writ is not appropriate remedy - Respondent shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law.

[Para 2]

ORDER

S.B. Sinha , J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 15089 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the Writ Petition filed by Swami Bodhananda had been allowed. The said writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents therein to give all assistance to the Appellant in taking over management of the institutions specified therein. The said writ petition was filed having regard to the judgment of the Civil Court.

2. A decree passed by the Civil Court must be passed in terms of the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code. The writ petition is not the appropriate remedy therefor. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. It, however, goes without saying that the First Respondent herein shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law.

Appeal allowed.