IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 FAO.No. 117 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/04/2008 IN IA. 836 /2008 IN OP.98/2008 of 1ST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANGATT KOTTIYATTUMUKKU SREE MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE-REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT PRESIDENT KESAVAN, S/O.PUNGATT PANGU, MANGADU VILLAGE,DESOM. 2. PRESENT SECRETARY SHRI.M.P.SASI, S/O.MATHIKKATT VEETTIL THAMI, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GANGADHARAN, S/O.KARUMAMPARA VEETTIL PARAN, MANGAD VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. K.B.PRADEEP., S/O.KURUMBOOR VEETTIL BHASKARAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. SIVARAMAN, S/O.KOKKODU VEETTIL RAMAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. V.T.ASHOKAN, S/O.VELLAKDA VEETTIL THUPRAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. ..2/- ..2.... FAO.NO.117/2008 5. M.K.PURUSHU, S/O.MEPPADATH VEETTIL KRISHNAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 6. RAJENDRAN., S/O.VAZHAPPILLY VEETTIL APPUTTY, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 7. K.A.MOHANDAS, S/O.KOTHATT VEETTIL APPUKUTTAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 8. K.J.NIKHIL, S/O.KANDAMPULLY JAYAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 9. K.P.KUMARAN, S/O.KOKKOLI VEETTIL PALLI, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 10. V.S.SUJEESH KUMAR, S/O.VADASSERRY VEETTIL SUKUMARAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 11. K.M.BHASKARAN, S/O.KURUMBOOR VEETTIL MINU, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 12. E.P.DINESHKUMAR, S/O.ERATH VEETTIL PARAMESWARAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 13. K.A.RAVI, S/O.KOKKODU APPU., MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 14. M.C.SANTHOSH, S/O.MANNAKIL VEETTIL CHANDRAN, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 15. K.K.SOORAJ, S/O.KAPPIRIKKAL KUNJUNNI, MANGADU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- F.A.O. No. 117 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the I Addl. District Judge, Thrissur, in I.A. No.836/2008 in O.P. No.98/08 whereby the court below, by an interim mandatory injunction, had directed to convene an extra ordinary general body meeting in compliance with the stipulation in the byelaws of the Temple Committee within a period of one month from that date. 2. The counsel appearing had made available the byelaws for perusal. Rule 6(9) of the byelaws deals with the convening of an extra ordinary general body meeting. It is stated therein that if more than 25% of the members in writing with reason demands for convening an extra ordinary general body meeting, it has to be so convened. It is further stated that there must be a common agenda with notice to all and that only the items in the agenda can be discussed in the extra ordinary general body meeting. In the absence of the Secretary, the President is entitled to convene the meeting. FAO NO.117/08 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who had entered on caveat, has also submitted before me that cogent reasons are given for convening the meeting and as the byelaws stipulates convening of a meeting, when those conditions are satisfied, one cannot find fault with the order of the District Judge in ordering the convening of such a meeting. I am also in agreement with the said contention. If 25% of the members had submitted a memorandum in writing for convening a general body meeting, it is obligatory on the part of the Secretary or in his absence on the President to convene the general body meeting. Therefore the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference and FAO is dismissed. I am also informed that so far no meeting has been convened. Most probably it may be under the impression that the FAO is filed before this court. I grant one month's time from today for convening the meeting in compliance with the byelaws requirements. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps FAO NO.117/08 3 FAO NO.117/08 4 FAO NO.117/08 5