IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19686 of 2010(O) -------------------------- CMA.13/2008 of DISTRICT COURT,KOZHIKODE OS.520/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SOMANATHAN, S/O.VELUKUTTY, RESIDING AT PACHAKKIL CHEMMANKOTTU HOUSE, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE, 2. VASUDEVAN, S/O.RARU, RESIDING AT NANGANADATH PULPARAMBIL MANNARAKKAL HOUSE, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O.ANDI, RESIDING AT PACHAKKIL HOUSE, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE 673 009. 2. SRI.UNNIRARICHAN, VEEDU -BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGER.P.T.SAHADEVAN, RESIDING AT 33/3127, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE 673 009. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 19686 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.520 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff,-II, Kozhikode and respondents in C.M.A.No.13 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal District Judge, Kozhikode are the petitioners before me. O.S.No.520 of 2007 is a suit for injunction filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff to restrain petitioners from interfering with the administration and management of the suit property and private temple situated therein. They filed I.A.No.3891 of 2007 seeking an order of injunction against petitioners alleging that they have no right to interfere with the suit property or administration of the temple but, are attempting to do so. According to respondent No.1, suit property and temple belonged to Pachakkil Tarvad which has two branches and respondent No.2/defendant No.1 being the senior most member of the two branches is managing affairs of the temple. He is also President of the festival committee convened every year for conducting the festival. Petitioners denied that there are only two branches for the tarvad. According to them there are 5 branches and are also members of Pachakkil tarvad. They claimed that a permanent committee was formed for W.P.C.No.19686 of 2010 : 2 : managing affairs of the temple and in that capacity they are entitled to administer the temple. They produced Exts.B1 and 16 to support their contention. Learned Munsiff was of the view that respondent No.1 was not able to prove a prime facie case and dismissed the application. That application was challenged by respondent No.1 in the C.M appeal. Appeal was allowed in part directing parties to maintain status quo as on date of suit. There was also a direction to the petitioner to maintain true and correct account of day-to-day affairs of the temple till disposal of the suit and produce the same in court as and when required for handing over the same to the person who is entitled to administer the temple. 2. Grievance of petitioners in this writ petition is that learned Principal District Judge had made certain observations which are contrary to the evidence on record and which might affect prospects of petitioners at the time of trial of the suit. Learned counsel points out from pages 15 and 16 of the judgment that while learned Principal District Judge has formed an opinion that Exts.B1 to B16 produced by petitioners revealed that as on the date of suit they were administering the temple by constituting committee but in page 15 it is stated that despite the statement of petitioners that respondent No.2 is not the manager W.P.C.No.19686 of 2010 : 3 : of the temple, respondent No.1 could not produce any document to prove that respondent No.2 was eldest member of the tarvad and he acted as Manager of the temple. Further down in the judgment learned Principal District Judge observed that petitioners did not produce any document to show that before respondent No.2 was ousted from the post of Manager they sought any explanation from him nor was he heard, the procedure is that when the eldest member of the family who acts as Manager of the temple fails to perform his duty next eldest member of the family is appointed as Manager but instead of doing that petitioners have convened committee and administered the temple. Ultimately learned Principal District Judge directed parties to maintain status quo and petitioners are directed to maintain true and correct account of the day-to-day affairs of the temple, which according to the learned counsel indicated that petitioners are involved in administration and management of the temple and its property. According to the learned counsel adverse finding against petitioners shall not affect their prospects in the suit. 3. I have gone through the judgment of learned Principal District Judge. Having regard to the circumstances stated and the apprehension of petitioners I direct that trial court shall dispose W.P.C.No.19686 of 2010 : 4 : of the suit untrammeled by the impugned observations made by the learned Principal District Judge as to entitlement of parties concerning administration of the temple and its properties. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-