IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).NO. 27831 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.28 OF 2005 OF I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. RAJAN K.VARGHESE, S/O.KUNJU, AGED 54 YEARS, KALAPPATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ROJI ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 42 YEARS, AKAMPALLIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. K.A.GEORGE, S/O.ITTAN, AGED 68 YEARS, KALAPPATTIL HOUSE, B.K.PURAM P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.V.KURIAKOSE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 64 YEARS, MEPPADATH HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. DR.JACOB JOHN, S/O.CHACKO YOHANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, AKAMPALLIL HOUSE, MEEMPARA P.O., AIYYAKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. ST.PETERS & ST.PAULS (JACOBITE) SYRIAN CHURCH, KURUNJI, MEEMPARA P.O., AYYAKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE. 5. VERY REV.FR.C.K.JOHN COREPISCOPA, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KORA, CHEERAKADAKKUNNEL, KIZHIMURI P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. K.V.KURIACHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, KIZHEKKE CHERUKATTU, MONAPPILLY, B.K.PURAM P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. M.K.PAUL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKO, MEEMPARA P.O., PUTHNCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. FR.VARGHESE KALAPPURACKAL KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, KADAIYIRIPPU P.O., KOLANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. K.V.PAULOSE, KEENELIL HOUSE, MEEMBARA P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. K.V.THOMAS, KADAMMANATTU HOUSE, MEEMBARA P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. K.V.MATHEW AKAMPILLIL, KOMAMPARATHKUDIL, NADAKURISHU, B.K.PURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. THOMAS K.GEORGE, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 13. K.M.JAMES, MALAYAKARUVELIL, MEEMBARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL FOR R9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.27831 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 9. 2. Petitioners along with others filed O.S.No.39 of 2005 in the court of learned Sub Judge, North Paravur for a decree for prohibitory injunction and other reliefs. That suit was withdrawn and transferred to the court of learned First Additional District Judge, Ernakulam and renumbered as O.S.No.28 of 2005. Respondent Nos.7 to 9-contesting defendants raised a contention that the suit is not maintainable since leave of the court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not obtained. Learned Additional District Judge accepted that contention and dismissed O.S. No.28 of 2005 as per judgment and decree dated 04.09.2010. Grievance of petitioners is that until disposal of the suit there was an arrangement between the parties in the matter of conduct of Holy Mass and other religious functions in the Church involved but that has come to an end by the dismissal of the suit W.P(C) No.27831 of 2010 -: 2 :- and there is possibility of dispute between the parties arising in the conduct of Holy Mass and other religious functions in the Church. Petitioners have not obtained a copy of judgment and decree to challenge the same before appropriate court. In the circumstances petitioners seek direction in the matter of conduct of Holly Mass and other religious functions in the Church. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9 contended that since suit has been dismissed remedy of petitioners is to prefer appeal and seek appropriate relief or seek appropriate relief from the trial court which dismissed the suit. 3. It is not disputed that suit was dismissed on 04.09.2010. Normally it will take some time for petitioners to get copy of the judgment and decree and challenge the same in the appropriate court. But some arrangement has to be made in the meantime to preserve peace in the Church. Having regard to the circumstances stated above and considering the views expressed by counsel on both sides I am inclined to make the following arrangements in the matter of conducting Holly Mass and other religious functions in the Church until appropriate orders are passed by the court considering the appeal against dismissal of the suit. W.P(C) No.27831 of 2010 -: 3 :- Resultantly, Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Both sides are directed not to commit waste in the suit property. (ii) Parties are directed to conduct Holly Mass and other religious functions in the Church on alternate weeks. Accordingly Holly Mass and other religious functions if any in the Church will be conducted by respondent No.5 from 5.00 p.m., on 11.09.2010 till 5.00 p.m., on 18.09.2010. The next turn will be of contesting respondent Nos.7 to 9 beginning from 5.00 p.m., on 18.09.2010 onwards and similar turn will follow and be observed by the parties. (iii) The above arrangement will continue until the appellate court passes appropriate orders in the appeal that may be preferred by the petitioners. (iv) In case filing of the appeal is delayed or for any other justifiable reasons it will be open to respondent Nos.7 to 9 to approach this Court for cancellation/modification of the above arrangement. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv