IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 1043 of 2006() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.403/98,IA.664/06 IN OS.61/1977 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------- 1. C.V.VARIET, S/O.VARIETT CHEERAN, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMPAL. 2. P.V.THARUKUTTY, S/O.VARIATH PULLIKKOOTTIL, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMPAL. 3. C.V.ITTYEAHU, S/O.VARIETH, CHERUVATHUR, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMPAL. 4. C.C.KOCHUNNY, CHERUVATHUR, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMPAL. 5. P.I.CHACKERY, PULIKKOOTTIL, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMPAL. 6. K.V.J0SE, S/O.CARIATH, KOLLANNUR, KATTAKAMPAL. 7. C.C.PAILAPPAN, S/O.CHERU CHEERAN, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMPAL. 8. C.I.PAUL, S/O.IYYUKUTTY, CHEERAN, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMPAL. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------ 1. ............... 2. CHERIYAKKU IYPPOORU, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMPAL VILLAGE, TRICHUR. 3. ZACHARIAH MAR ANTHONIOS, METROPOLITAN, SION SEMINARY KORATTY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. R1 IS DELETED AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 19.06.2009 IN CRP. ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM FOR R2,3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.1043 OF 2006 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the order passed in I.A No.664 of 2006 in I.A No.403 of 1998 in O.S No.61/1977 dated 09/11/2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Ernakulam. In the above suit, O.S No.61/1977, two factions claimed right over some church properties. A number of similar cases including the above case emanating from such disputes pursuant to orders passed on the direction of the apex court were transferred to a Special Court constituted for the trial of such cases. Additional 6th plaintiff in O.S No.61/1977 is stated to be the Metropolitan of the Cochin Diocese who managed the churches by the vicars appointed by him. In two suits namely O.S No.61/1977 and 9/1978, it is stated, the C.R.P.No.1043 OF 2006 Page numbers appointment of vicars and kaikars by the 6th plaintiff to manage the churches arose for adjudication before the court. The contesting defendant in the above suits had also filed another suit as O.S No.4/1987 for settling a scheme to administer and manage the church properties. The above suits were separately tried and disposed of by separate judgments with former two suits O.S No.61/1977 and 9/1978 decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the other suit O.S No.4/1987 dismissed. When appeals were filed from the decrees and judgments of all the above three suits before this court, all the appeals after being heard together were disposed by a common judgment. Though the decision rendered by this court was challenged before the Division bench as well the decrees passed by the trial court in the three suits were confirmed. During the pendency of the suits, on an interlocutory application moved, some of the church properties were taken over by a receiver. Later on orders issued by the trial C.R.P.No.1043 OF 2006 Page numbers court, the properties managed by the reveiver were handed over to the 6th plaintiff or the nominees appointed by him. It is stated that in one interlocutory application, an order had been passed by the trial court that the additional 6th plaintiff or his nominees who receive such properties shall be administrators holding such properties under the court. So, after the suits were disposed of, with the appeals from them also dismissed, and the decision thereof becoming final, since the nominees appointed by the additional 6th plaintiff could not administer the properties effectively on account of their physical ailments an application was moved before the court to allow the additional 6th plaintiff to appoint other persons as his nominees to administer the properties. The trial court after hearing both sides allowed that application. The order so passed is challenged in the present revision. C.R.P.No.1043 OF 2006 Page numbers 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court after passing the decree has become functors officio, and so much so, the relief claimed in the petition by the additional 6th defendant could not have been allowed and therefore the impugned order was liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents narrating the circumstances under which the petition had been moved for sanction of the court in the appointment of nominees by the additional 6th plaintiff, submitted that since the nominees continue as administrators under the court order, the course followed by the additional 6th defendant and the orders passed by the court though not covered by the decree are proper, correct and legal. After hearing the counsel on both sides, and perusing the impugned order passed by the court below, taking note of the background of the case and the issues adjudicated upon and the decision rendered by the court, I find no impropriety or C.R.P.No.1043 OF 2006 Page numbers illegality in the application moved by the additional 6th plaintiff seeking permission of the court in appointing his nominees and the order passed by the court allowing that application. When the nominees of the 6th plaintiff continue as administrators with liability to account before the court, which they are stated to be carrying out without fail, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, I find, the order passed by the court below in the interlocutory application moved by the additional 6th plaintiff is perfectly justifiable. In the given facts of the case, it was necessary so long as the administration of the church properties covered by the suit ordered by the court continued to be in force. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv