IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 610 of 2001(B) ------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.58/77 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.) .......................... APPELLANT(S)/3RD DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------ L. GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TEACHER RESIDING AT JOSE BHAVAN, ALUMMOODU P.O. IN NADUVILAKKARA CHERRY IN THRIKKOVILVATTAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.C. UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S)/ PLAINTIFF AND 1ST DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. REV. C. ALAXANDER, VICAR, ST. STEPHAN'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, ALSO CALLED MUKHATHALA OLD CHURCH AT MUKHATHALA IN QUILON. 2. M. MATHEW VAIDYAN, TEACHER RESIDING AT MODERN BUNGALOW, KANNANALLOOR PO. CHERIKONATHUR CHERRY IN THRIKKOVILVATTAM VILLAGE. ADDL.R3: FR. STEPHEN ABRAHAM, AGED 52, SON OF K.C. ABRAHAM, VICAR, ST.STEPHENS JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, MUKHATHALA, ACRATHU VEEDU, NADUVILAKKARA ALUMMOODU P.O. MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.3.2010 IN I.A.916/04. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 610 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the exparte decree passed in O.S.58/77 by the District Judge, Ernakulam dealing with church matters. The court below granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff whereby the defendants are directed to handover key of the plaint church to the plaintiff by way of a mandatory injunction decree and the defendants were injuncted by a permanent injunction decree from causing any obstruction in the plaintiff conducting all or any of the religious ceremonies in the plaint church. 2. A perusal of the judgment would reveal that the learned District Judge had set the defendants exparte and on the basis of the A.S. 610 OF 2001 -2- affidavit had granted a decree which does not reflect the total application of mind and the circumstances which had led the Court to grant a decree. It is a well known fact that normally exparte decrees does not carry detailed discussions. But here the case involved is a very serious one and parties are litigating under one pretext or other for decades together. When such is the situation the learned District Judge should have at least made a specific reference regarding his application of mind so that this Court would have been in a better position to appreciate the case. Now under such circumstances this Court asked the counsel for both the sides why the matter cannot be reconsidered as materials are lacking to consider the appeal on merits here. When the plaintiff argues the case on merits with marked A.S. 610 OF 2001 -3- documents the appellant may have to argue the matter without any exhibits of him being produced and marked before Court. Further I am informed that by a decree, now the Church is locked and no prayer is being conducted therein. I therefore think the only appropriate remedy is to have a time bound disposal in the strictest manner so that the parties will get a contested disposal. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity. 3. Therefore the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration after permitting both the sides to adduce both documentary as well as oral in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. I direct the parties to appear before the trial A.S. 610 OF 2001 -4- Court on 15.7.2010 and the Registry is directed to transmit the records immediately. I further direct the learned District Judge to dispose of the matter within a time frame of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties namely 15.7.2010. In order to avoid complications as the Church is closed as on today I direct the said status quo be maintained till the disposal of the suit. I make it very clear the time fixed by this Court for disposal has to be meticulously complied and I also direct both the parties to give maximum co- operation to the Court so as to have an uninterrupted trial so that the matter can be disposed of within the time limit. 4. If there is any remedy for the defendants as contemplated under law with reference to S.92 sanction, it can be raised in A.S. 610 OF 2001 -5- appropriate forum strictly in accordance with all the laws. It is also made clear the said contention is not to be looked into by the trial court while conducting the trial in this case. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- A.S. 610 OF 2001 -6- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 610 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 1st July, 2010.