IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 669 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- OS.1310/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER -------------------- PAZHANCHERY UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 52, S/O.KARTHYAYANIAMMA, RESIDING IN PAZHANCHERY VEEDU PUTTEKARA DESOM, ANJOORU VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. JANARDHANAN NAIR, (DIED), S/O.PAZHANCHERY KARTHYAYANIAMMA, OORAKAM DESOM, ANAKARA AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, SREE PATHIYARKULANGARA DEVASWOM PARAMBARYA TRUSTEE, OORAKAM DESOM, ANAKARA AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680 552. 2. PAZHANCHERY GOPI, S/O.DEVAKY AMMA, RESIDING OORAKAM DESOM, ANAKARA AMSOM, CHAVAKKADU, PATHIYARKULANGARA.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 552. 3. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CULTURAL ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM. 676 505. 4. ASST.COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CULTURAL ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM. 676 505. tss O.P.(C) NO.669/2011 5. NARAYANA MENON, S/O.PUTHIYEDATH KUNJULAKSHMI AMMA, OORAKAM DESOM, ANAKARA AMSOM, PATHIYARKULANGARA.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 552. 6. PARUKUTTYAMMA, D/O.PAZHANCHERY MEENAKSHIAMMA, OORAKAM DESOM, ANAKARA AMSOM, PATHIYARKULANGARA.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 552. 7. KUNJIKAVAMMA, D/O.PAZHANCHERY MEENAKSHIAMMA, OORAKAM DESOM, ANAKARA AMSOM, PATHIYARKULANGARA.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 552. 8. THANKAMMA, D/O.PAZHANCHERY MEENAKSHIAMMA, OORAKAM DESOM, ANAKARA AMSOM, PATHIYARKULANGARA.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 552. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R3,4 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss O.P.(C) NO.669/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.1310/2006 DATED 19.12.2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P2- COPY OF THE IA. 720/2011 IN EXT.P1 SUIT DATED 6.1.2011. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 20.1.2011 IN IA. NO.720/2011 IN OS. 1310/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2011 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- XOP, ORDER DATED 21.3.2011 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS. NIL:- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- O.P.(C). NO.669 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 JUDGMENT O.S.No.1310/2006 is a statutory suit filed under Section 62(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951. The original plaintiff filed the suit claiming that it is the Pazhanchery Tharwad, which owns the Pathiyarkulangara Bhagavathy Temple, that the plaintiff is the eldest member of the family, he claims to be the hereditary trustee. It is submitted that the dispute arose, since the 3rd defendant who is admittedly the member of the Puthiyedath family staked claim for the trusteeship in the temple in question. The suit was filed for a declaration that the order passed by the 2nd defendant does not affect the plaintiff or his status as a hereditary trustee. The further relief sought for is to cancel the said order and for a decree of declaration that the 3rd defendant is not a hereditary trustee. The original plaintiff died -2- O.P.No.669/2011 during the pendency of the suit. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent herein, who is a third party, got himself impleaded as additional 2nd plaintiff. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it seems that the additional 2nd plaintiff was not properly conducting the suit, which if not properly conducted, will result in adverse orders passed against not only the plaintiff but the entire family. It is submitted that the grievance ventilated in the suit is a collective grievance. The right of the family to be the hereditary trustee of the temple is the issue involved. Alleging that the 2nd respondent/additional plaintiff is not conducting the case properly, the petitioner, who is another member of the family, filed I.A.No.720/2011 for impleading himself as additional 2nd plaintiff in the suit. It is said that the said IA was filed to safeguard the interest of the persons concerned. ExtP2 is the said petition. On 20/1/2011 when Ext.P2 petition was taken up for hearing, the -3- O.P.No.669/2011 learned Judge dismissed the said petition stating that the suit has been dismissed. 3. Taking into consideration the grievance of the petitioner that additional plaintiff was not properly conducting the suit, the petitioner should have been impleaded as an additional 2nd plaintiff. The counsel submits that none of the reason stated in the petition for impleading was considered and by a single line order the petition was happened to be dismissed. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the learned Judge dismissing Ext.P2 application. The fact remains is that the impleading petition was not considered on merits. The suit was dismissed for default. On the same day Ext.P2 application was also dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the restoration application is pending consideration and that the dismissal of the suit before considering Ext.P2 application has resulted in miscarriage of justice, so far as the petitioner is concerned. -4- O.P.No.669/2011 4. In the circumstances, Ext.P3 order is set aside. Learned Sub Judge, Thrissur is directed to hear and dispose of Ext.P2 application and restoration application on merits, in accordance with law. Original Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.