IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 759 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN AS.164/2001 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER/12TH RESPONDENT:- --------------------------------------------------------------- PAILY YOHANAN, VARIATHU, VETTICKAL P. MULATHURUTHI KARA, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. MR. N.SUKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 11 AND 13 TO 16:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FR.GEO GEORGE, MATTAMEL, S/O.FR.(LATE) GEORGE MATTAMEL, AGED 39, CARMEL MOUNT , KANDANAD PO 2. DR.YAKOB MAR IRENAIOS, S/O.LATE T.A.CHERIYAN, AGED 60 SION SEMINARY, KORATY EAST, THRISSUR- 680 308. 3. FR JOHN GEORGE, S/O.E.Y GEORGE, ASSISTAT VICAR, MULANTHURUTHY MAR THOMAN CHURTH, MULANTHURUTHY. 4. FR. E.P JOHN, ERAMANGALATHU HOUSE,VETTICAL 5. CHACKO SIMON, RESIDING AT PUTHENANGADY, MULANTHURUTHY, 6. MATHAI KORA, PURAMATTATHIL, MULANTHURUTY. 7. THOMAS PHILIP @ BABY, PALAKKAT, MULANTHURUTY. R.P. No. 759/2009 : 2 : 8. CHACKO BABY, KOLUTHAL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY. 9. EAPEN EAPEN, KOLUTHAL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY. 10. VARKEY GHEEVARGHESE, CHEPPANATHU, MULANTHURUTHY. 11. PAILY MANI, ENNIRI, MULANTHURUTY. 12. MATHEW PAILY, ENNIRI, MULANTHURUTY. 13. IYPE VARGHESE, AYYANKULANGARA, THALAPPANA, MULANTHURUTHY 14. PAILY POULOSE, CHEMPOTHURUTHY, THALAPPANA, MULANTHURUTHY. 15. PATHROSE CHANDY, KITHATTIL, VETTICAKL.PO, 16. ITTEN OUSEPH, CHATHANKUZHI, VETTICKAL P.O. 17. MATHEW VARGHESE, KANJIRATHIL PUTHUMANA, MULANTHURUTHY, 18. KURUVILA ABRAHAM, THANANGATTIL , MULANTHURUTHY. MR. S.SREEKUMAR MR. V.CHITAMBARESH(SR) MR. N.SAJU THOMAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 759 of 2009 in I.A. No. 1652 of 2009 in A.S. No. 164 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009. ORDER This review petition is filed by the 12th respondent in the above appeal seeking a review of the order dated 08.07.2009 in I.A. No. 1652 of 2009 as per which one Fr. Geo George Mattamel, Dr. Yakob Mar Irenaios and Fr. John George sought their substitution as appellants 1 to 3 in the place of existing appellants and as petitioners in all the interlocutory applications. 2. Even though the above application was opposed by the respondents including the review petitioner herein, as per impugned order dated 08.07.2009, this Court allowed the application as if there was no context. It is thereafter that the present review petition has been filed. 3. I heard both sides. 4. The above appeal was filed by plaintiffs 3 and 4 in R.P. No. 759 of 2009 : 2 : O.S. No. 8 of 1977 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam (described as the Church Court). 5. The subject matter of the dispute is the Mulamthuruthy Mar Thoman Church ( St. Thomas Church, Mulamthuruthy). The appellants belong to the Orthodox faction and the contesting respondents belong to the Patriarch faction of Syrian Christians. The 1st appellant in the above appeal who was the 3rd plaintiff as aforesaid was one Fr. K.J. Kuriakose who was the vicar of the church. The 2nd appellant who was the 4th plaintiff in the suit was one Zachariah Mar Anthonios Metropolitan who was the Diocesan Metropolitan of the Cochin Diocese. While so, I.A No. 1342 of 2006 was filed seeking substitution of the 1st appellant by one Fr. Thomas Ponnamkuzhy alleging that the 1st appellant had retired from the post of vicar with effect from 20.03.2006. Accordingly, this Court as per order dated 20.07.2009 in I.A. No. 1342 of 2006 arrayed Fr. Thomas Ponnamkuzhy as the 3rd appellant. Thereafter, the R.P. No. 759 of 2009 : 3 : person who was functioning as the vicar was the said Fr. Thomas Ponnamkuzhy and the 2nd appellant namely Zachariah Mar Anthonios continued to be the Diocesan Metropolitan. It is thereafter that the present application namely I.A. No. 1652 of 2009 was filed alleging that Catholicos had transferred Zachariah Mar Anthonios, the 2nd appellant to Kollam Diocese and had appointed Dr. Yakob Mar Irenaios as the Diocesan Metropolitan and that Fr. Thomas Ponnamkuzhy who was arrayed as the 3rd appellant was transferred and in his place Fr. Goe George Mattamel was appointed as the vicar and also permitted one Fr. John George as the assistant vicar. It was with these allegations that Fr. George Mattamel and Fr. John George sought their arraignment as the vicar and the Assistant Vicar in addition to Dr. Yakob Mar Irenaios functioning as the Diocesan Metropolitan. When the appeal itself was filed by the Vicar and the Diocesan Metropolitan, there was no need for bringing on the party array the R.P. No. 759 of 2009 : 4 : Assistant Vicar as well by way of substitution of the Vicar. Prior to the filing of I.A. No. 1652 of 2009, the appellants' faction were managing only with a vicar and there was no Assistant Vicar arrayed on the party array. If so, while substituting the vicar namely Fr. Thomas Ponnamkuzhy with Fr. Geo George Mattamel, there need not be an Assistant Vicar. Thus, Fr. Geo George Mattamel, the 1st petitioner in I.A. No. 1652 of 2009 will stand arrayed as the vicar in the place of Fr. Thomas Ponnamkuzhy and the real appellants for the purpose of above appeal will be Dr. Yakob Mar Irenaios, the Diocesan Metropolitan and Fr. Geo George Mattamel, the vicar. The Assistant Vicar shown as Fr. John George, the 3rd petitioner in I.A. No. 1652 of 2009 will not be arrayed as an appellant in the above appeal or as the Assistant Vicar in the church. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Vicar used to be assisted by the Assistant Vicar while conducting services in the church and same is the position R.P. No. 759 of 2009 : 5 : with regard to the Patriarch faction as well. That is a matter to be taken into account while services are conducted by the respective factions on the days allotted to them. That is not the reason to bring on the party array the Assistant Vicar who was not in the array of parties till the filing of I.A. No. 1652 of 2009. Hence, the order dated 08.07.2009 will stand reviewed deleting the arraignment of Fr. John George who was the 3rd petitioner therein. It goes without saying that if the Vicar is assisted by any Assistant Vicar in the matter of services carried on by one faction, there is no reason why the other faction also should not be allowed to have the services of an Assistant Vicar while conducting the services in the Church. But, that is no reason as to why an Assistant Vicar should be permitted to be arrayed as a party in the above appeal. This review petition is allowed as above. Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.P. No. 759 of 2009 : 6 :