IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6241 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.202/2008 of SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- M.ASOK KUMAR PANDARATHIL, S/O.OORUMADATHIL MAHESWARARU PANDARATHIL,RESIDING AT OORUNMADATHIL,PUTHOOR VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA TLK. KOLLAM DIST.,REP.BY THE P/A HOLDER G.SUBRAMANIYAN THANTHRI,KAMMANCHERY MADAM, KAIRALI NAGAR-91,KILIKOLLOOR P.O.,KOLLAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MR.SANKARA BHATTATHIRI, S/O.MAHESWARA BHATTATHIRI, AGED 69 YEARS, CHITHRATHOOR MADOM, MUTHAVAZHI, PANDANADU, CHENGANNUR. 2. KRISHNA BHATTATHIRI, S/O.SREEKUMARA BHATTATHIRI,AGED 67 YEARS, CHITHRATHOOR MADOM, MUTHAVAZHI, PANDANADU, CHENGANNUR. 3. SREEKUMARAMANGALAM SUBRAHMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, MUTHAVAZHI, PANDANAU, CHENGANNUR. 4. M.V.GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT, SREEKUMARAMANGALAM SUBRAHMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, MUTHAVATHI, PANDANAU, CHENGANNUR. 5. SANALKUMAR, SECRETARY, SREEKUMARAMANGALAM SUBRAHMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, MUTHAVAZHI, PANDANAU, CHENGANNUR. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.6241/2010 JUDGMENT LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SEEKS PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE WRIT PETITION. PERMISISON IS GRANTED. THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 31.3.2010 SD/-P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE PA TO JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 6241 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Order of the Sub Court, Chengannur in I.A. 373 of 2009 in O.S. 202 of 2008 is assailed before this court. O.S. 202 of 2008 was a suit based on title. It related to a temple. The plaintiffs claim that they are the absolute owners of the temple and the defendants have no manner of right. The defendants on the other hand contended that the plaintiffs had no manner of right and the temple had been managed and administered by a Samathy for a long time. They also relied on Udampady No.3222 dated 22.12.1982. 2. Pending suit, it appears that the plaintiffs moved I.A. for having the Thazhikakudam of the temple (dome) examined by experts to identify Irridium, a costly substance. The court below allowed that petition. WPC. 6241/2010. 2 3. Initially, this court admitted the writ petition and granted an interim order as prayed for. Later it was submitted that a petition was filed for withdrawing the writ petition and on that basis the writ petition was dismissed. Later, one person filed I.A. 5774 of 2010 seeking to have the order of dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, to be recalled and the matter be examined further. I.A. 5670 of 2010 was also filed by the same petitioner pointing out that a fraud was played on this court and it was against the interest of the devotees as well as the defendants in the suit that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. It is also pointed out that it was against the interest of the temple also. 4. After hearing both sides that petition was allowed and the writ petition was restored to file. 5. Heard both sides. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in I.A. 5774 of 2010 would point out that the order by the court below was uncalled for and it was passed without hearing the affected parties. It was also WPC. 6241/2010. 3 contended that in the suit pending, the title is in dispute. According to learned counsel one fails to understand what is the present hurry to have the Thazhikakudam subjected to any sort of examination for any purpose. Learned counsel relying on the averments in the plaint and subsequent petitions pointed out that the concern of the plaintiffs seems to be the Thazikakudom rather than the temple itself. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents pointed out that there is a wide spread rumor that the Thazhikakudom contains a very costly and valuable substance Irridium and unless it is ascertained, it may not be possible to take adequate measures to safeguard the Thazhikakudom. It was pointed out that no particular harm is caused to the petitioners before this court in having the dome examined by experts and in fact the petitioners before the court below have deposited the requisite amount. WPC. 6241/2010. 4 7. A reading of the plaint would prima facie indicate that the plaintiffs are more concerned about Thazhikakudom rather than anything else. It is true that the suit is one for declaration of title and for consequential reliefs. But the emphasis was on the Thazhikakudom. The defendants have pointed out that the plaintiffs have no manner of right and the temple is being administered and managed by them. Therefore the issue as to who is entitled to have the management and administration of the temple itself is in dispute. Under such circumstances, one fails to understand as to what was the haste and hurry for the court below to make the impugned order. The relevance of subjecting the Thazhikakudom to any sort of examination escapes one's understanding. It has no relevance to the subject matter of the suit. It was without adverting to any of the relevant facts and circumstances that the impugned order has been passed. WPC. 6241/2010. 5 8. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the petition for examination of dome stands dismissed. The court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.