IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1253 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN EP.1/2008 Dated 07/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 13 IN I.A ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.V. KURIAKOSE, NADUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT. 2. FR. JOSE JOHN, AGED 56, S/O.YOHANNAN, PARANAYIL HOUSE, BOOTHATHAN KETTU, KEERANPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. FR. ABRAHAM, AGED 56, S/O. GEEVARGHESE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. FR. ABRAHAM, AGED 46, S/O. VARKEY, PRIEST,ALIYATHUKUDY, RAYUAMANGASLAM, PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM. 5. ABY, AGED 39, S/O. VARKEY, CHELATTKALAPURA HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 6. P.M. ELDO, AGED 57, S/O. MATHAI, PALAPILLUIL HOUSE, KARUKADOM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. JOHNSON, AGED 42, S/O. KURIAKOSE, THEKKILATH HOUSE, KUZHIPPILLY.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. JOSEPH, AGED 57, S/O. KURIAKOSE, KARIMUTTIPURAM HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. KURIAKOSE, AGED 46, S/O. PAULOSE, CHUDAR HOUSE, NELLIKUZHI.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. SALIM, AGED 59, S/O. CHERIAN, MALIYIL HOUSE, COLLEGE.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. SHIBU, AGED 41, S/O. KURIAKOSE, PANAKAL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. THOMAS, AGED 46, S/O. YACOB, KOTTAMANGAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. BABU PAUL, AGED 33, S/O. PAULOSE, KUTHUKUZHY HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.V. JAMES, AGED 47, S/O.K.S. VARKEY, KATTANGANAL HOUSE, THANKALAM.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. FR.C.K. GEEVARGHESE, AGED 62, S/O. KURIAKOSE, CHERIACHERI HOUSE, VANGANOOR(E) P.O, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.K.APPU SRI.B.G.BHASKAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-11-2008 , THE COURT ON 27/11/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * R.P. No. 1253 of 2008 in I.A. No. 2980 of 2008 in E.P. No. 1 of 2008 in O.S. No. 1 of 1979 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 28-11-2008 ORDER This is a petition for reviewing the order dated 7-11-2008 in I.A. 2980 of 2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It was without going into the rival contentions of the two warring factions regarding the maintainability of the execution petition, that this Court passed the impugned order. The purpose of that petition was only to permit the petitioners therein to conduct the funeral services in respect of one M.T. Paulose who was the father of the Ist petitioner therein. Having regard to the urgency of the matter, this Court was avoiding a position either way regarding the maintainability of the execution petition. Hence the sentence in paragraph 4 of the order dated 7-11-2008 which reads “It cannot be said that with the conduct of the election the decree passed by R.P. No. 1253 of 2008 in I.A. No. 2980 of 2008 in E.P. No. 1 of 2008 in O.S. No. 1 of 1979 -:2:- the Apex Court has been fully executed” was unnecessary for the disposal of the said petition, and it shall stand deleted. 4. As for the objection of the review petitioners regarding the sentence which reads “This Court has been permitting parallel services by both the warring factions for the same church in other parts of the State” , the said observation was not made with reference to this particular church namely Marthoma Cheriyapalli, Kothamangalam. Hence the objection is unsustainable. This Review Petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 27th day of November 2008. Sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. /true copy/