IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 2893 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RFA.562/2010 OS.268/2011 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------- 1. K.P.CHANDRAN,S/O.KUNJUPANICKER,H.NO.555, UDAYANVATHUKAL KARAZHMA,VALLIKUNNAM.P.O, VALLIKUNNAM,MAVELIKKARA TALUK(EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE,OACHIRA). 2. PARAYIL RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, HOUSE NO.214,PARAYIL HOUSE,KAPPIL EAST, KRISHNAPURAM PANCHAYATH AND VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,ALAPPUZHA(WORKING COMMITTEE MEMBER OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE OACHIRA. BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR, SMT.SABINA JAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,OACHIRA,KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 526. 2. SADASIVAN,S/O.VASUKUTTY,SECRETARY, OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE,ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, RESIDING AT KADASSERIL PUTHEN VEEDU,HOUSE NO.55, PRAYAR NORTH,PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE,DEVIKULANGARA PANCHAYATH,KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,ALAPPUZHA - 690 547. 3. V P S MENON,S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, PRESIDENT,OACHIRA PRABRAHMA TEMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,RESIDING AT VAIKATHETHU HOUSE (SOUBHAGYA)ADINAD SOUTH MURI,KATTILKADAVU.P.O, ADINADU VILLAGE,KULASEKHARAPURAM PANCHAYATH, KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM- 690 518. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2893/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER BY 161 MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE. P2: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.966 OF OACHIRA POLICE STATION. P3: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REPORTED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 9/08/2011. P4: COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED IN O.S.O.268/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. P4A: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT IN O.S.NO.268/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. P5: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 4/08/2011 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P5A: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 8/08/2011 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 8/08/2011 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OBTAINED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL COURIERS BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 24/08/2011. P8: COPY OF TH NOTICE CONVENING THE WORKING COMMITTEE MEETING ON 7/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED IN O.S.NO.268/2011 BY THE PETITIONERS ON 26/08/2011. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DDGD. 19/01/2011 IN I.A.NO.4054/2010 IN RFA NO.562/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2893 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.268 of 2011 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Karunagappally. It is submitted that in connection with the same matter, R.F.A.No.562 of 2010 is pending in this Court and that petitioners made an attempt to get impleaded in that appeal but that request was not allowed and the application was closed as per Ext.P10, order dated January 19, 2011 with certain observations. While so, petitioners filed the suit before the learned Munsiff seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents removing petitioners from the executive/managing committees of the first respondent. They also filed application for temporary injunction but learned Munsiff was constrained to issue notice to the respondents since respondents had filed a caveat. It is contended that notice of application was served on respondents on 20.08.2011 and to defeat the claim of petitioners in the suit and application, respondents manipulated records to make it appear that there was a meeting of the first respondent on 03.08.2011 in which a decision was taken to remove petitioners from the executive/managing committee of the first respondent and O.P(C).No.2893 of 2011 -: 2 :- accordingly, Exts.P5, P5A and P6, notices were issued to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, there was no such meeting and Exts.P5 to P6, notices were issued only after institution of the suit and service of notice of the application for temporary injunction and hence any transaction which took place during the pendancy of the suit has to be ignored. Petitioners filed Ext.P9, application before the learned Munsiff for an order of temporary injunction to direct respondents to keep Exts.P5 and P5(a) in abeyance until disposal of the suit. The applications are pending consideration before learned Munsiff. The prayer in this petition is to withdraw O.S.No.268 of 2011 to this Court for trial with R.F.A.No.562 of 2010 and pass appropriate orders, set aside Exts.P5, P5A and P6 being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and above all, tainted with malafides and illegality. There are certain further prayers also made by petitioners in this proceeding. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently contended that there was no such meeting on 03.08.2011 as now propounded by the respondents and that Exts.P5 to P6, notices were issued to the petitioners only after respondents were served with notice of the application for injunction. 3. I am inclined to think that it is for the learned Munsiff to consider all the contentions that petitioners have raised as to the alleged convening of meeting on 03.08.2011, removal of O.P(C).No.2893 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioners and issue of Exts.P5 to P6, notices to the petitioners, whether there was any such meeting or not, whether notices were issued after the service of notice of the application for injunction and if so what is its effect on Exts.P5, P5A and P6, notices. Learned Munsiff has to consider whether Ext.P9, application preferred by petitioners could be allowed, having regard to the circumstances. I am not inclined to think that this Court should decide these matters at the first instance. Nor do I think it necessary to withdraw the suit to this Court for a decision. The proper course open to the petitioners is to request learned Munsiff to decide the pending applications in the suit if preliminary steps on the said applications are over. 4. However having regard to the grievance of petitioners learned Munsiff is directed to expedite disposal of the pending applications (in O.S.No.268 of 2011) if steps on those applications are over and there is no legal impediment in doing so. Resultantly with the above direction this original petition is closed. This order will not stand in the way of petitioners seeking appropriate reliefs in R.F.A.No.562 of 2010 if petitioners are otherwise entitled to that course. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-