IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 FAO.No. 393 of 2010 ---------------------------- [ IA.NO.3868/2007 IN OS.43/2007 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM] .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.S.VARGHESE, S/O.SCARIA, KAVANACHOTTIL HOUSE, PALACKAMATTOM KARA, IKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. V.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHAI, VADANKULANGARA HOUSE, MANGATTOOR KARA, IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 3. C.K.THAMPI, S/O.KURIAKOSE, CHUNDATHADATHIL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADI KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY SRI.N.SUKUMARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.S.SHYAM, SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ST.PETER'S AND ST.PAUL'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, KOLENCHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR REV. FR. VARGHESE EDUMARY, EDUMARY HOUSE, KOLENCHERY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. 2. REV.FR.VARGHESE EDUMARY, S/O.PAILY, VICAR, ST.PETER'S AND ST.PAUL'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, KOLENCHERRY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK - 682311. F.A.O.NO.393/2010: 3. REV.FR.JACOB KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, PRIEST, ST.PETER'S AND ST.PAUL'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, KOLENCHERRY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. *4. P.M.GEORGE, S/O.LATE SRI.MATHULLA, ELOOR PANNIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. *(DIED) 5. K.A.THAMPI, S/O.ABRAHAM, KUNNATHUKULATHUKATTIL HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE- 682 311. 6. T.V.PURAVATHU, S/O.VARKEY, THAMARACHALIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. *7. C.V.PAILY, S/O.VARKEY, KOCHIPUTHENPURAYIL, KARUKAPPILLY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. *(DIED) 8. P.P.THOMAS, POOKKOLAYUIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. 9. A.V.PATHROSE, S/O.VARKEY, ATHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MANGATTOOR KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. 10. THOMAS M.ALIAS, S/O.ALIAS, MUNDAYIL HOUSE, PERINGOLA KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. 11. JOGI GEORGE, S/O.C.M.GEORGE, CHOLATTU HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, VADAYAMPADY.P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. 12. BABU PAUL, S/O.LATE P.M.PAILY PILLA, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERRY P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK – 682 311. F.A.O.NO.393/2010: 13. MATHEW YOHANNAN, S/O.MATHEW VALLIKATHIL, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, MANGATTOOR-682 311. 14. SUNIL MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, NJARITHOZHIYIL, ELAMKULAM KARA, KOLENCHERRY-682 311. 15. K.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHAI, KODIYATHU, MAHUVANNOOR VILLAGE, EZUPRAM, SOUTH MAZHUVANNOOR – 686 669. 16. PAUL P.KUNNATH, S/O.POULOSE KUNNATH, PERINGODE, AIKKARANADU NORTH, KOLENCHERRY-682 311. *IT IS RECORDED THAT R4 AND R7 EXPIRED AND THEIR LRS. ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES AS PER ORDER DT. 24/05/2011 ON MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS. R1,R2,R5,R13 & R15 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011, ALONG WITH O.P.(C). NO. 1134 OF 2010 AND F.A.O NO.127 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: F.A.O.NO.393/2010: ORDER ON I.A. NO.4557/2010 IN F.A.O. NO. 393/2010 DISMISSED SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE, 24/05/2011. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O.No.393 of 2010, F.A.O.No.127 of 2011 & O.P.(C) No.1134 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Read common order dated 23.5.2011 which is the following effect: “These matters essentially arise from a suit pending before the court below. The interlocutory orders which are challenged apparently do not survive since it is submitted that election has been conducted. The veracity or sustainability of that election is not a matter for decision herein. Subject to the suit being tried and disposed of in accordance with law, as at presently advised, we do not find any reason to further retain these matters here. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, list tomorrow as last chance.” 2.St.Peter's and St.Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, FAO393/11 & con.cases -: 2 :- Kolencherry and its administration is the subject matter of the suit from which the captioned matters arise. It is pointed out that different issues touching the constitution, which will govern the administration and other attendant matters, are in dispute. The court below has dismissed an application by the plaintiffs for appointment of a receiver. That is under challenge in F.A.O.No.393 of 2010. Another application was filed by the plaintiffs for injunction from conducting an election. That was also dismissed. It appears that the order issued in F.A.O.No.393 of 2010 is a composite one, also containing an order on an application filed by the defendants. O.P.(C).1134 of 2010 is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution and seeking to quash certain decisions of the court below and also for an interim relief to direct the second defendant to surrender the keys of the church to the court below pursuant to the order that is challenged in that original petition. 3.Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing FAO393/11 & con.cases -: 3 :- for the plaintiffs who are the appellants in the FAOs and who have filed the original petition and also the learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants, we are of the view that the fundamental issues between the parties in the litigation which are to be resolved, cannot be answered in an interlocutory proceeding. For one thing, any observation in that regard will impede a proper trial. It may even tend to impinge on the rival contentions and rights of parties that would be put to trial. Also is the fact that such issues cannot be decided without a comprehensive marshelling of the oral and documentary evidence that may be brought on record by the parties concerned. Obviously, the effect, if any, of any earlier judgment issued by courts of competent jurisdiction, including this Court, may also have to be considered in accordance with law. It is also too premature for us to express either way, including as regards that, though the learned counsel for the contesting defendants states that in an earlier round, there is a concluded verdict rendered by this Court. The learned senior FAO393/11 & con.cases -: 4 :- counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that this Court had essentially left all issues open for the trial court to decide upon. We do not express anything in that regard. 4.With the aforesaid, we are clear in our mind that the court below has now to proceed with the final trial of the suit and being a special court designated for trial of church cases, it would be able to find time to dispose of this litigation, namely, O.S.No.43 of 2007 pending before it in a time bound manner. This has to be untrammelled by anything stated in any of the orders which are challenged before us in the captioned matters, including as regards the effect and binding nature of any constitution which would govern the parties. It is clarified that no observations in any of those orders or in this judgment shall be treated as conclusive during the adjudication of the suit. 5.Subject to the aforesaid, the FAOs and the Original Petition are dismissed directing the FAO393/11 & con.cases -: 5 :- court below to proceed with the suit in terms of the aforesaid directions and conclude the trial at the earliest, at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We clarify that if either side needs any interim order regarding the preservation of the buildings or for any matter touching the ceremonies etc., they may move the court below, however that, the court below will ensure that pendency of any such application does not further prolong this litigation. Office will communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/2505