IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20450 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.71/2004 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SRI. SHINE.R. S/O. RAJAN, IDAVELIYAZHIKAM, 8, MUKKALUVATTOM, VAKKOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SRI. K.PRAKASH, S/O. KESAVAN, 71, THONDANTAZHIKAM, 9, IRANGU KADAVU, VAKKOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI. N.SUDHEESAN, S/O. NEELAKANDAN, 92, PUTHUVEETTIL THODI,9, IRANGU KADAVU, VAKKOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN SRI.S.K.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI. N.SREENIVASAN, S/O. NEELAKANDAN, SREEVAS, VAKKOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695308. 2. SRI. K.S. SABU, S/O. SUDEENDRAN, SREENILAYAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695304. 3. SRI. G.SASEENDRAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, KONNANCHIRA THODIYIL VEEDU, VAKKOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695308. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20450 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioners who are non-parties to the pending proceeding have come up with this Writ Petition to declare that O.S.No.71 of 2004 pending in the court of learned Sub judge, Attingal is unsustainable, that the same is liable to be dismissed and for a further declaration that the Kshethrabharana Samithy (for short, “the Samithy”) which is one of the defendants in the suit being a samithy registered as a society under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), is a private trust and in either way it does not come within the purview of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners contend relying on the decisions in Subramonia Pillai Chellam Pillai v. Subramonia Pillai Chathan Pillai and others (1953 KLT 117) and Abhaya v. Ragheem (2005 (3) KLT 891) that in either case when the trust is a private trust or when it is a society registered under the Act, it does not come within the purview of Section 92 of the Code and hence the suit is prima facie not maintainable. Grievance of the petitioners is that they are devotees of the temple which is being administered by the Samithy but inspite of the above legal position defendants in the suit are not vigilant in the matter thereby causing inconvenience to the devotees including petitioners. Learned Senior Advocate therefore requested for interference of this Court. WP(C) No.20450/2010 2 2. I must bear in mind that petitioners are not parties to the present litigation. It is also not as if, if petitioners have any direct interest in the matter they cannot seek their impleadment in the pending suit and seek reliefs prayed for in this Writ Petition. Maintainability of the suit is a matter which the court concerned has to decide at the first instance. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not to be invoked to grant reliefs of the nature prayed for when such relief can be requested for in the pending suit and if petitioners are not parties, by seeking their impleadment in the suit if the law provides for that. I am therefore not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. But I make it clear that if petitioners have any direct interest in the matter and if the law permits it is open to them to seek their impleadment in the pending suit and seek relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition. Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the said remedy of petitioners. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks