IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25012 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.122/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.431/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- CYRIL MAR BASELIOS, METROPOLITAN OF MALABAR, INDEPENDENT SYRIAN CHURCH (MALABAR SWATHANTHRA SURIYANI SABHA) THOZHIYOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY MR.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.T.M.MOHAMMED YOUSUFF, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.P.K.BEHANAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:PLAINTIFFS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.C.MATHEWKUTTY, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, CHALISSERY.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. P.K.KUNJUKUNJHAN, S/O.KURIYAN, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KALLUMPURAM, KADAVALLUR.P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. C.K.WILSON, S/O. KURIYAPPAN, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, NEPANS ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM .P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. P.M.CHARLEY, S/O MOSAS, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHALISSERY.P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. 5. REV.FR,K.A.JOB, S/O. ABRAHAM, KUZHUPPULLY HOUSE, CHALISSERY ROAD, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. E.T.CHERU S/O. THATHU, PANAKKAD HOUSE WEST BAZAR, KUNNAMKULAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 7. C.K.APPAPPU, S/O.KURIAN, CHERUVATHUR HOUSE, FIRE STATION ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM. ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.25012/2009 O 8. C.K.PAVU, S/O.KUNJAN CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, PORKULAM, KUNNAMKULAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 9. M.C.THAMPI, S/O. CHUMMAR, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, KORATTIKKARA POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 10. M.C.CHUMMAR, S/O. CHERU, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, PERINGOUD POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 11. P.C.BABY, S/O.CHAKKUNNY, PULAKKAL HOUSE, PERINGODU POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 12. P.T.KUTTAPPAN, S/O. THANCHU, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KALLUMPURAM KADAVALLUR POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 13. M.U.KOCHUKUNJU, S/O. UKRU, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, KALLUMPRAM, KADAVALLUR.P.O., THALPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 14. C.V.THARUKUTTY, S/O. VAREEKUTTY, CHEERAN HOUSE, CHALISSERY POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 15. REV.FR. BABU VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, PAZHANJI, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. *ADDL.R16 IS IMPLEADED: R16. ADVOCATE SRI. T..K. VIJAYAKUMAR (RECEIVER), THRISSUR - 3. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 14/10/09. R1 TO R15 BY ADVS. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN, MR.P.RAMACHANDRAN. ADDL.R16 BY ADVS. MR.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY, SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25012 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.431 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. Suit is for a declaration and for injunction, and the respondents are the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 15 in number claim to be the members of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church. That Christian Sabha consists of 13 parish with its headquarters at Thozhiyur and it is governed by its own Constitution. The defendant is now the supreme head of the Metropolita of the Sabha council, and at present challenges are pending even in respect of his authotity and status to be the head of that Council. The lis relating to the present suit arose on the validity of a meeting convened by the first defendant and the decisions taken in that meeting. Such a meeting was convened by the first defendant on 01/06/2008 to take decisions on the affairs of the Sabha council. It is the case W.P.(C).No.25012 OF 2009 Page numbers of the respondents that though they had been given notice of the meeting, they were prevented from attending the meeting and in fact arrested near the venue of the meeting by the police. They have a case that their arrest by the police preventing them from attending the meeting was at the behest of the defendant. Suit was filed to seek a declaration that all the decisions taken in the meeting in the absence of the respondents/plaintiffs are null and void. A perpetual prohibitory injunction was also sought for to restrain the defendant from taking any action or decision including the appointments of various establishments under the Sabha council on the basis of the decisions taken in the meeting. It has been stated that one among the resolutions adopted in the meeting was to the effect of expelling the respondents/defendants from that meeting of the Sabha council. With the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application for interim injunction identical to the main relief sought in the suit till its disposal. The defendant resisted that application by filing objections. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides allowed the application of the plaintiffs vide Ext.P13 W.P.(C).No.25012 OF 2009 Page numbers order. Challenging the correctness of Ext.P13 order, the defendant preferred an appeal before the District Court, Thrissur. During the pendency of that appeal, the appellant/defendant moved an application for appointing him as the receiver stating that he has been recognised as the Manager by the Educational Act and the Rules and in view of the restrictive orders timely action to be taken in the matter of appointment, management and maintenance of the educational institutions and also the Sabha could not be carried out causing injury to the institutions, the students and the parishes as a whole. The learned District Judge heard the appeal and also the application for appointment of the receiver together and disposed them vide separate orders. The interim injunction granted by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P13 order was confirmed by Ext.P14 judgment dismissing the appeal. On the application of the defendant to appoint him as receiver, an advocate was appointed as receiver to carry out the functions over the entire administration of the Sabha council. W.P.(C).No.25012 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. In the present writ petition challenge is against Ext.P14 order passed by the learned District Judge, which confirmed Ext.P13 order of the court below, restraining the defendant from enforcing the decisions taken in the meeting held on 01/06/2008. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the nature of the disputes presented for consideration before this court, I directed the petitioner to take steps for giving notice to the receiver also. Accordingly, such notice given, receiver appointed by the court below has also entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides including the counsel representing the advocate receiver. At the time of hearing, it has been brought to my notice that the petitioner has preferred an appeal as F.A.O No.292 of 2009 with a petition to condone delay to challenge the order of appointment of receiver passed by the learned District Judge over the administration of the Sabha and its properties. Though arguments were advanced at length, even canvassing that this court in W.P.(C).No.25012 OF 2009 Page numbers exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to interfere with the concurrent orders passed on Ext.P13 and Ext.P14 judgment in the facts of the case, even by resorting to reappreciating the materials produced as such orders place fetters on the spiritual head, the defendant, from discharging even his spiritual functions as the head of the Sabha council, after going through Ext.P13 order and P14 judgment and also the reliefs canvassed in the suit, I find that even an observation by this court with respect to any of the issues presented may cause prejudice to one or other parties at trial of the suit and so much so, I refrain from dilating on the disputed questions presented in the case which require to be resolved in adjudication by the trial court after extending reasonable opportunity to both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken serious exception to some of the observation made by the learned District Judge that the meeting convened itself was illegal pointing out that such observations are likely to prejudice the learned Munsiff at the trial of the suit. I do find some force in the submission W.P.(C).No.25012 OF 2009 Page numbers made though it is trite law that none of the observations made in the course of disposal of the interlocutory proceedings shall have any bearing or reflection in the final disposal of the suit. However, to alley the apprehension, I make it clear that the learned Munsiff shall dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in his Ext.P13 order or that of the District Judge in Ext.P14 judgment or of this court in the present judgment. Two courts have concurrently found that the respondents have made out a prima facie case for the interim relief of injunction canvassed for. There is nothing to indicate that the discretion exercised by the learned Munsiff which was found to be proper and correct by the learned District Judge in the grant of the interim relief warrant interference by exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the facts presented, I find that what is required is a quietus to the whole controversy raised in the suit at the earliest by an expeditious trial of the suit. So much so there will be a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose the suit as W.P.(C).No.25012 OF 2009 Page numbers expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Both sides are directed to cooperate for an expeditious disposal of the suit. I make it clear that whatever challenge the petitioner has against the order of appointment of the receiver or of any act done by him under such orders of appointment is left open to be agitated in the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. 3. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed. Send a copy of the judgment to the court concerned forthwith. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv