IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).NO. 25712 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3138/2008 IN CMA.122/2008 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CYRIL MAR BASELIOS, AGED 3 YEARS, METROPOLITAN OF MALABAR INDEPENDENT SYRIAN CHURCH, THOZHIYOOR, THRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. M.C.MATHEWKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, CHALISSERY POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679536. 2. P.K.KUNJUKUNJHAN, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O.KURIAN, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KALLUMPURAM KADAVALLUR POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THALAPPILLY TALUK - 680503. 3. C.K.WILSON, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KURIYAPPAN, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, NEPANS ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK- 680503. 4. P.M.CHARLY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MOSAS, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHALISSERY POST, OTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKD DISTRICT-679536. 5. REV.FR.K.A.JOB, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, KUZHUPPULLY HOUSE, CHALISSERY ROAD, KADAVALLUR POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680543. 6. E.T.CHERU, AGED 56 YEARS,S/O.THATHU, PANAKKAL HOUSE, WEST BAZAR KUNNAMKULAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680503. 7. C.K.APPAPPU, AGED 66 YEARS,S/O.KURIAN, CHERUVAHUR HOUSE, FIRE STATION ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIS. 8. C,K.PAVU, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN, CHITTILAPPILLY HOSUE, PORKULAM, THALAPPILLY TLAUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 9. M.C.THAMBI, GED 54 YEARS,S/O. CHUMMAR, MEKKATTUKULAM, HOUSE, KORATTIKKARA POST 680543. 10. M.C. CHUMMAR, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. CHERU MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, PERINGODU POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKD DISTRICT - 679535. 11. P.C.BABY, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. CHAKKUNNY, PULAKKAL HOUSE, PERINGODU POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679535. 12. P.T.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 88 YEARS, S/O. THANJU, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KALLUMPURAM, KADAVALLUR P.O. THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680543. 13. M.U.KOCHUKUNJU, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.UKRU, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, KALLUMPURAM, KADAVALLUR P.O. THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680543. 14. C.V.THARUKUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.VAREEKUTTY, CHEERAN HOSUE, CHALISSERY POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679536. 15. REV.FR.P.B.BABU VARGHESE, AGED 70 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, PAZHANJI, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680542. 16. T.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, 1ST FLOOR, ACF BUILDINGS, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR -3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.25712 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P2, order dated 08.07.2009 on I.A. No.3138 of 2008 in C.M.A. No.122 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Thrissur appointing an Advocate as Receiver for management of the Malabar Independent Syrian Sabha Church, Thozhiyoor (for short, “the Church”) and to do whatever necessary for the interest of the Church and its Parishioners. Petitioner claims to be the Metropolitan and Supreme Head of the Church and claimed to have been elected as such and consecrated in the year 2001. He also claims to be the President of Council of the Church and elected as Manager of its Educational Institutions. While so the former Metropolitan who had allegedly renounced his post interfered with administration of the Church and its Institutions and thereon petitioner proposed to convene a meeting of the Council on 27.04.2008 but due to the illegal intervention of respondents that meeting could not be convened and hence another meeting was convened at Ernakulam on 01.06.2008. Respondents filed O.S. No.431 of 2008 in the court of learned W.P(C) No.25712 of 2010 -: 2 :- Munsiff, Chavakkad and sought injunction against petitioner proceeding with the decision of the Council meeting held on 01.06.2008. Learned Munsiff granted an order of injunction on I.A. No.1611 of 2008. Challenging that order petitioner filed C.M.A. No.122 of 2008. In that appeal petitioner filed I.A. No.3138 of 2008 to appoint him as party Receiver. That application was opposed by the respondents contending that petitioner is not the Metropolitan and Supreme Head of the Church and that there are several cases pending challenging claim of petitioner in that behalf. Learned Additional District Judge after hearing parties appointed Advocate V.K.Vijayakumar as the Receiver as per impugned order dated 08.07.2009. Petitioner challenged that order in F.A.O. No.292 of 2009 but that appeal was dismissed as not maintainable as per judgment dated 05.04.2010. Thereafter petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the order appointing an Advocate as Receiver is not sustainable. Learned counsel invited my attention to a communication between the petitioner and the Advocate Receiver. 2. It is not disputed that the Advocate Receiver has taken charge as such as ordered by the learned District Judge and for about one year he is discharging that function. Petitioner W.P(C) No.25712 of 2010 -: 3 :- also wanted a Receiver to be appointed, according to him himself, which was not agreeable to respondents who challenged claim of petitioner as Metropolitan and Supreme Head of the Church. They contended that there are several cases pending challenging the claim of petitioner in that behalf. It is in the circumstances that learned District Judge has appointed an Advocate as Receiver. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order at any rate at this belated stage. If petitioner is dissatisfied with functioning of the Receiver he can either seek discharge of the Receiver or appointment of some other person as Receiver as circumstances warranted. It is also open to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the learned District Judge notwithstanding the disposal of the C.M. Appeal if petitioner is otherwise entitled to that course, as provided under law. With the above observations, Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv