IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 155 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.120/2005 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER - IST COUNTER PETITIONER/IST DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------- AVANAVANCHERRY TEMPLE DEVELOPMENT SAMITHY, REG.NO.138/96, AVANAVANCHERRY INDILAYAPPAN TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MOHANAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, AGED 45, RESIDING AT ATHIRA, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL P.O BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & CR.PETITIONERS 2 TO 15/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 15: --------------------------------------------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVAN, NEAR B.H.S. ATTINGAL, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE - 695 103. 2. VIJAYAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KANAVILAVEEDU, OF DO. DO. 3. JAYADEVAN, PUTHENMADAM, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERRY, -DO- VILLAGE. 4. B.AJITH, MINI BHAVAN, KAIPPATTUMUKKU, OF DO. DO. 5. V.K.THAMBI, K.S.BHAVAN, OF DO. DO. 6. V.BABU, PADMA VILASOM, OF DO. DO. 7. T.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, SUDHA MANDIRAM, OF DO. DO. 8. C.RAVINDRAN NAIR, KANNANKARA VEEDU, DO. DO. OP(C) NO.155/2010 2 9. S.MOHANAN, SIVARAMA NIVAS, KAIPPATTI MUKKU, DO. DO. DO. 10. SAJI KALLINGAL, KONATHU VEEDU, OF DO. DO. 11. S.ANIL KUMAR, KANNANKARA VEEDU, OF DO. DO. 12. A.SUNIL KUMAR, KALLINGALKONATHU VEEDU, OF DO. DO. 13. R.SAJIKUMAR, R.V.BHAVAN, OF DO. DO. 14. C.R.SANTHOSH, RADHA MANDIRAM, OF DO. DO. 15. A.JAYAN, KOLLAMKONATHU VEEDU, OF DO. DO. 16. M.MURALI, OUR NEST, OF DO. DO. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.155 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT This petition arises from O.S.No.120 of 2005 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Attingal. That is a scheme suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) against a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”). The society was represented by its then office bearers. According to the petitioner there was an election to the governing body and new office bearers were elected for the society. But they were not impleaded in the suit. Nor did they seek impleadment. While so, with the erstwhile office bearers on the party array representing the society an exparte decree was passed accepting a new scheme which provided for conduct of fresh election by a team consisting of two of the plaintiffs and a court nominee. Later, on application of the plaintiffs a court nominee was appointed but again showing erstwhile office bearers of the society as counter petitioners and without notice to the new office bearers. Learning about that the new office bearers approached learned Sub Judge with Ext.P8, application for review, to set aside the exparte decree and seeking other reliefs. An application to condone the delay and another application to maintain status quo in the matter are also filed. Those applications are pending consideration of the learned Sub Judge. In the meantime, new office bearers have approached this Court under Article 227 of OP(C) No.155/2010 2 the Constitution challenging Ext.P9, order dated 31.05.2010 on I.A.No.948 of 2010 in O.S.No.120 of 2005 of the court of learned Sub Judge and seeking a direction to the learned Sub Judge to consider Ext.P8 and other applications preferred by petitioners within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court. Learned counsel states that the entire proceedings have been taken behind the back of new office bearers and with the erstwhile office bearers on record representing the society which is illegal. 2. It is seen that petitioners have already filed applications before the learned Sub Judge. It is for the learned Sub Judge to consider those applications and pass appropriate orders. I am not persuaded to think that when the matter is pending consideration before the learned Sub Judge this Court is to interfere in the matter and set aside an order which is sought to be reviewed before learned Sub Judge. Learned Sub Judge is directed to expedite disposal of Ext.P8 and other applications in O.S.No.120 of 2005 pending before him. With the above direction this petition is closed. But, in the meantime the order appointing court nominee will stand in abeyance for a period of one week from this day. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks