The case, on the record.

…finding that there was no challenge that a particular application for allotment of the land is manipulated or forged or fabricated — that we never disputed the document.

You have disputed it.

Yes. And therefore, my lords, this honourable court comes to the conclusion that if the application is not disputed and is genuine, then it follows that the sale deed — even though the sale deed by the Bangalore Development Authority is in my favour, though it does not refer to the registration number or the name of the Karnataka society, which is the plaintiff — must also therefore be in their favour. That, my lords, is the substratum, in my respectful submission, of the judgment in this matter. Now, my lords, the second aspect is this. The background becomes relevant here. The division-bench judgment, my lords, heavily relies on the admissions made by the president of this alleged Karnataka society in four suits, my lords, that had been filed before this one in the years 1999 till 2001. In the first, one suit is filed in Bombay by a third party espousing the cause of this gentleman, Shri Madhu Pandit Das, the president of — let’s call it the temple at Bangalore, the Hare Krishna temple in Bangalore. The other three suits are filed by Shri Madhu Pandit Das himself, as the president, and in each of these three suits he admits in so many words — and I will place the averments in just one of them — that he is the president of the Bangalore branch of the defendant society; that in fact the temple, my lords, the land is allotted and the temple built on behalf of the branch; that he is submitting accounts on behalf of this branch to the Bombay society, that is ourselves; and it is undisputed, my lords, that between the formation of the Bangalore branch and the year 2001, all income taxes have been filed by consolidating the accounts of the Bangalore branch into the accounts of the parent society, which is the Bombay society. Thereafter, my lords, what happens here is this: after he files these three suits and tries to get an injunction against the Bombay society — that is the 1971 society formed by Srila Prabhupada himself — after he tries and fails to get an interim injunction to maintain his position as president of the Bangalore branch, he does this complete volte-face, my lords, and says now that there is this independent society. And this society, in fact — and I am not disputing this — was formed in 1978, but after that none of the formalities were observed, is the finding of the division-bench judgment. Now, the more important point which I am coming to is this: as an error apparent on the face of the record, one of the recast points for decision framed by the division bench is what is the effect of these judicial admissions on the case. Despite that, the judgment under review does not make even one reference to these judicial admissions, which is accepted, completely ousted the case…

It becomes a relevant fact.

Yes — of the plaintiff society.

Discussion at the bench of judges.

Kindly respond by issue noticing — but what will you do, we will not give a review.

But the scope of the review jurisdiction is limited.

My lords, no, my lords.

The order of… 47, 14, 14 and 14, we know that. But what we can do — we will hear it, but we will hear it both on merit and review, because we don’t wish to hear it piecemeal. We will give a specific date.

Yes.

We will give a specific date, 2 o’clock…

Yes, my lords.

…sometime in February, we will give a date. You just — we will hear you then.

Yes.

And then we are not deciding any issue now.

Yes. All we wanted was…

…to put the issues on the scope of review and on merit.

Correct.

Yes, scope of review and merit — because actually what is being done is to re-argue; that can’t be done.

No issues. OK. A finding of fact has been wrongly recorded contrary to what is available — then it is a ground for review.

Yes.

There is an issue which came up for conscious consideration before the court under the judgment, which has not been dealt with — and had it been dealt with, the decision would have been different — it is a ground for review.

All these have been dealt with. Yes.

Whether this factor has been dealt with or not, we will point out.

Yes, we will point out.

Then in that process, we don’t want to do it piecemeal, in order to say one thing or the other. Let us have it — at least thrash it out one way or the other. Shall we have a 2 o’clock review, because it is a special bench.

What had happened all these years — it was being managed by a judge, a retired justice, Ravindran. The moment this judgment came, it has gone back to…

But now we can’t put it back again.

I am just saying, therefore, there is an element of this.

OK, OK. That’s it. We don’t want to cause an interim. Then we will give a date in February.

Very well.

We will take it up on Wednesday or Thursday, regular date.

It is better, my lords, than Wednesday. … Yes, my lords.

My lords, may I only suggest — your lordships allow us to serve, by all means…

Yes.

…all the parties…

Yes.

…so that there will be no…

You are appearing for only a few of the parties, is it?

Two parties.

We are appearing for respondent number one and Madhu Pandit Das.

Who is that?

Who is the president, my lord?

Which respondent is he?

He is in the second matter.

Second matter — he is respondent number one.

OK, one second.

I think there may be other parties. There are a number of other parties.

To serve, trustee and… The registrar is directed to complete the pleadings within a period of six weeks.

We will give a convenience compilation.

Yes, a convenience compilation. The third week is fine, for all of you.

OK, my lord.

May I only suggest newspaper publication as well, my lordships?

Unless you serve it and then…

No, the difficulty will be — otherwise you will get adjourned again. Because the parties…

Newspaper publication is an alternative mode of publication.

First let them take an effort.

The bench confers.

My brother said — first let the notice be served, then we will give a date.

Very well.

So then when would my lordships like to put it?

We can keep it in February. In the meanwhile, this service of notice and all can be looked into by the registrar.

May I suggest this, only subject to my lordships’ convenience — your lordships may put it for directions in January.

Okay.

And then my lordships… then only for this purpose. You put your third week of January for directions — only for the purpose of ensuring that notice has been served on all the respondents. This is urgent, to issue notice. And all the parties can file their pleadings in the meantime.

We can take it up on that date, and then thereafter we will get sufficient time.

Very well. Grateful, my lords.

We will further make it clear that on the date to be fixed for hearing — it will be February — there will be jurisdiction over review as well as on the merits of the review.

Most grateful to you, my lordships.

Because only for the case of verifying…

On the lighter side — what Lord Krishna must be thinking about all this.

There have been attempts of mediation. We have made offers. It should be sorted out. It should be. And the society has been functioning very well.

Is it possible to make one attempt through any other judge of this court?

And the Bangalore society has started this Akshaya Patra, and billions of meals have been served, my lords, and huge…

They have taken something that belongs to us — but that’s another matter.

Extraordinary — completely the Bangalore society.

I just have one submission.

On the lighter end — obviously both sides think that nothing belongs to them, and everything belongs to God.

That’s right.

They are trying to achieve consciousness. That’s very unfortunate.

Thank you.

Grateful, my lords.