IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 6407 of 2009(O) ------------------------- CMA.56/2008 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA OS.227/2008 of MUNSIFF.COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- PR.PRASAD KOSHY, S/O.KOSHY,"ARATHU EBENEZAR", OLAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- MALAYALAM DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD,POST BOX.NO.53,PUNALUR,PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN - CAVEATOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.6407 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 24th June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ or order setting aside Ext.P5 order. 2. Issue a writ or order allowing Ext.P2. 3. For similar other reliefs as prayed for. 2. Petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the decision taken by the executive committee of the first defendant to expel him from the post of Pastor is illegal and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction from executing the decision of expulsion. With the suit he filed an application for interim injunction which after notice to the opposite party and hearing both counsel was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the learned Munsiff was also not successful. Concurrent findings entered by the two courts below is sought to be impeached in the present Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made, the materials produced with the Writ Petition and perusing the order passed by the learned Munsiff and also the W.P.C.No.6407/09 - 2 - judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in the appeal preferred against the order, I find, there is no illegality or impropriety therein warranting interference by this court invoking its visitorial jurisdiction over the orders/judgments passed by the subordinate courts. In the order passed by the learned Munsiff, it is noticed, sufficient safeguards available to the petitioner have been pointed out. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of appeal against the order of expulsion. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no provision for preferring an appeal, which is disputed by the counsel for the respondent. I need not go into the controversy whether an appeal is provided by the bye laws of the first defendant. The petitioner has already approached the civil court for redressal against the order of his expulsion and it is not disputed that he can pursue the remedy before the court. That being so, having regard to th grievance raised by the petitioner and the nature of the relief sought for in the suit, I find an expeditious disposal of the suit is warranted to advance ends of justice. Learned Munsiff, Thodupuzha is directed to give the case top priority in hearing and dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, after affording reasonable opportunities to both sides to establish W.P.C.No.6407/09 - 3 - their respective case, at any rate, before the closing of the court for Christmas vacation. Needless to point out, suit shall be disposed on its merits untrammelled by the observations made by the learned Munsiff or the learned District Judge. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE