IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15354 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.33/2009 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------- 1. K.P.JOY,S/O.PAILY,AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARIMBALAKKAL HOUSE,NECHUR KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. FR.P.M.KURIAKOSE, MOOLAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PRIEST, ST.THOMAS CHURCH, NECHUR, RESIDING AT MOOLAMATTATHIL HOUSE,NECHUR KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. SIMON T.GEORGE,S/O.GEORGE,AGED 65 YEARS, KILIMANGALAM HOUSE,NECHUR KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 4. T.K.JOY,S/O.KURIAN,AGED 46 YEARS, THADATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, NECHUR KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 5. N.P.KURIAKOSE(WRONGLY DESCRIBED AS N.V.KURIAKOSE IN THE ORDER),S/O. PATHROSE,AGED 58 YEARS, NADUVILEDATHU PUTHENPURAYIL,EZHAKKARANADU, MANEED VILLAGE. 6. SOJAN P.ABRAHAM,S/O.ABRAHAM,AGED 45 YEARS, PUNCHALAYIL, PAZHOOR PO, KAROOR KARA, MANEED VILLAGE. 7. RAJU JOHN,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.JOHN NADUVILEDATHU PUTHENPURAYIL(VETTIKUZHIYIL HOUSE) EZHAKKARANADU, MANEED VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ WP(C) NO.15354/2010 2 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.V.PAUL,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.VARKEY, KOZHIKKOTTUTHARAYIL HOUSE, NECHUOOR KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. K.C.JOY,AGED 58 YEARS,S/O.CHACKO, KAYYALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NECHUR KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15354 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.33 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam trying church cases are the petitioners before me. Their grievance is that though, they had raised a contention as to the maintainability of the suit on account of the decision in a former suit and Ext.P5, application was preferred challenging maintainability of the suit under Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”), learned Additional District Judge-I has not considered the objection regarding maintainability and disposed of Ext.P5, application. Instead, respondents are getting interim orders in the suit. 2. I have heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The question whether the suit is maintainable in the light of the contention raised by the petitioners and whether the said issue can be decided at this stage are matters to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge-I. Now the grievance is that Ext.P5, application has not been considered and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge-I. When such an application has been moved learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam had to consider that application and pass appropriate orders. WP(C) No.15354/2010 2 Resultantly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam to consider Ext.P5, application and pass appropriate orders. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks