IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA, 1930 WP(C).No. 17337 of 2007(L) ------------------------------------- CMA.10/2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA OS.921/2003 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- VLP SCHOOL KALLOOR, KALLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HEADMISTRESS/ MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN KUTTY SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S RESPONDENT: --------------------- AMBALLOOR POURASTHYA SABHA MAR KURIAKOSE SAHATHA CHURCH, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17337 OF 2007-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED AS O.S.NO.921 OF 2003 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 31.5.2003 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1813 OF 2003 IN O.S.NO.921 OF 2003 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 14.6.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A. NO.1813 OF 2004 IN O.S.NO.921 OF 2003 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 15.6.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.164 OF 2006 IN O.S.NO.921 OF 2003 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 16.1.2006 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO I.A.NO.164 OF 2006 IN O.S.NO.921 OF 2003 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 21.1.2006 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.164 OF 2006 IN O.S.NO.921 OF 2003 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 8.2.2006 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN C.M.A.NO.10 OF 2006 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 21.2.2007. / TRUE COPY / PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17337 of 2007-L ------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution are Ext.P6 order passed by the Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda and Ext.P7 judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda refusing to entertain the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which was preferred against Ext.P6. The petitioner school is tenant of a building belonging to the respondent Church. The respondent Church instituted O.S.No.921 of 2003 seeking recovery of arrears of rent and fixation of fair rent. The above suit was made over by the Principal Munsiff Court to the Rent Control Court following the judgment of this Court in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) K.L.T. 767. That court would renumber the suit as a Rent Control Petition. Later wisdom dawned on the respondent Church that the building in question and for that matter all buildings of the Church had been exempted by the Government under Section 25 of Act 2 of 1965 and that the Rent Control Court will not have any jurisdiction at all over the building. It is under such W.P.(C) No.17337 of 2007 2 circumstances that I.A.No.164 of 2006 was filed by the respondent Church in O.S.No.921 of 2003 (which had already been made over to the Rent Control Court and renumbered as R.C.P.No.40 of 2004, seeking to call the Rent Control Petition back and to renumber the same as an original suit. The above I.A. is allowed by the Munsiff Court under Ext.P6. The learned Subordinate Judge considering the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which was preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P6 would take the view that Ext.P6 is an order which is not appealable in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.Krishna prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.R.Dileep, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. As before the learned Munsiff it was a technical contention which was urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention is that the suit O.S.No.921 of 2003 was not pending before the learned Munsiff and, therefore, I.A.No.164 of 2006 was clearly not maintainable and should not have been entertained. Learned Munsiff kept aside technicalities and noticed that the request of the respondent Church essentially was to call W.P.(C) No.17337 of 2007 3 back the Rent Control Petition which was clearly not maintainable and to facilitate adjudication of the same as an original suit which could be adjudicated only by the Munsiff. 4. Having regard to the contours of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution which is visitorial in nature, we are not inclined to hold that what the learned Munsiff did on considerations of justice was wrong. We certainly agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that as regards Ext.P7, the learned Subordinate Judge did not examine the merits of the matter. The learned Judge only noticed that no appeal is provided against orders in the nature of Ext.P6. In the view we have expressed regarding Ext.P6, we are not inclined to interfere with Ext.P7, either. The writ petition will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE (JUDGE) M.C.HARI RANI (JUDGE) vns