IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 CRP.NO. 480 OF 2010() -------------------------------- OS.1324/2009 OF II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.J.KRISHNAN, S/O. JOGYA SHETTY, AGED 65 YEARS, ALUKKAL VEEDU, KOCHI-12. 2. PB.MANIKKALAL, S/O.BALU SHETTY AGED 56 YEARS, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOCHI-12. BY ADV. SMT.P.M.SWAYAM PRABHA SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, K.R. RAMESHAN. 2. K.R.RAMESHAN, PRESIDENT, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, S/O. K.V.RAMACHANDRAN, KALAZHATHU PARAMBU, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12. 3. K.R.MOHANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, S/O. RAJU (PAMBA STORES), KARUVALIPARAMBU, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12. 4. K.R. DIVAKARA RAO, SECRETARY, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, S/O. RAI RAO, KARUVELIPARAMBU, UDAYANAN ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12. 5. K.R.MOHANAN, JOINT SECRETARY, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGVATHY DEVSWOM, S/O. RAMA SHETTY, RICE MERCHANT, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 6. T.B.RAJARATNAM, TREASURER, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12. 7. K.P.AJITH KUMAR, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER,MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGVATHY DEVASWOM, S/O. PADMANABHA SHETTY, KOOVAKKATTU HOUSE, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12. 8. T.N.RADHAKRUSHNAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, S/O. NEELASARA SHETTY, THUNDIPPARAMBU, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12. 9. T.B. BALU, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, THUNDIPPARAMBU, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12. 10. K.R.PRAKASHAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, S/O. RAMADAS, KALAZHZYATH PARAMBU, PACHALAM KOCHI-12. 11. T.P. ARUN KUMAR, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER, MANAGING COMMITTEE, ERATTAKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, S/O.T.S.PRABHAKARAN, C/O.P.G.BABU, JALAJA SWEETS, POTTAKKUZHY ROAD, PACHALAM,KOCHI-12 12. M.D.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.M.B.DASHARADHAN, MADAPATTU HOUSE, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12. ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU FOR CAVEATOR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.480 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 09th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners in this revision are plaintiffs in O.S. No.1324 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Ernakulam. He sued respondents-defendants for a decree for prohibitory injunction concerning administration of the Erattakulangara Bhagavathy Devaswom (respondent No.1). In the course of the suit an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct election. Commissioner conducted the election and submitted report. To set aside the report petitioner filed I.A. No.2877 of 2010 while two of the respondents filed I.A. 2344 of 2010. Learned Munsiff dismissed both the applications. Dismissal of I.A. No.2877 of 2010 filed by the petitioner is under challenge in this revision. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 challenged the maintainability of the revision. According to the learned counsel the order under challenge is not a “a case decided” coming under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). It is contended by learned counsel that even if this revision is allowed in favour of petitioner, that would not have the effect of final C.R.P. No.480 of 2010 -: 2 :- disposal of the suit or other proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioner in response relies on the decision in Sarojini v. Karthiyani Amma (2010 [1] KL SN 17 (Case No.19). 3. The decision relied on by the learned counsel does not say that no Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie challenging dismissal of an application to set aside report of an Advocate Commissioner. That decision only said that normally this Court should not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution where challenge is made to such an order unless the order suffered from any infirmity which if not corrected will result in great injustice. That decision cannot be understood as meaning that an order refusing to interfere with a report of the Advocate Commissioner is not amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. The order under challenge is one dismissing I.A.No.2877 of 2010 refusing to set aside report of Advocate Commissioner who conducted the election. Proviso to Sec.115 of the Code states that the High Court shall not under the said provision vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding an issue in the course of suit or other proceeding except where the C.R.P. No.480 of 2010 -: 3 :- order if it had been made in favour of a party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or “other proceedings”. The application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner cannot taken as “other proceedings” as understood in the proviso to Sec.115 of the Code. It is an application filed in the suit. Even if I.A.No.2877 of 2010 is decided in favour of petitioner, that would not finally dispose of the suit. As such in my view the revision is not maintainable. Remedy if any available to the petitioner is to challenge the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly this revision is dismissed as not maintainable without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioner. Registry shall return copy of the order produced to the counsel for petitioners on request. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv