IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35542 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.28/2005 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ST.PETER'S AND ST.PAUL'S (JACOBITE) SYRIAN CHURCH, KURUNJI, MEEMPARA (PO), REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE. 2. K.V.KURIACHAN, AGED 57, KIZHAKKE CHERUKATTU, MONAPPILLY, B.K.PURAM (PO), PUTHENCRUZ. 3. M.K.PAUL, AGED 56, MEENPARA, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM. 4. FR.VARGHESE KALAPPURACKAL, AGED 48, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU (PO), KOLENCHERRY. 5. K.V.PAULOSE, AGED 48, S/O.VARGHESE, KEENELIL HOUSE, MEEMPARA.P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM. 6. K.V.THOMAS, SON OF VARGHESE, AGED 47, KADAMMANATTU HOUSE, MEEMPARA.P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.PHILIP SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.A.GEORGE, KALAPPATTIL HOUSE, B K PURAM(PO), THIRUVANIYOOR (PO), KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.V.KURIAKOSE, MEPPADATH HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR (PO), KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RAJAN VARGHESE, KALAPPATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR (PO), KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. ROJI ABRAHAM, AKAMPALLIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR (PO), KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. DR.JACOB JOHN, AKAMPALLIL HOUSE, MEEMPARA (PO), AYIKKARASNADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. K.V.MATHEW, AKAMPILLIL, KOMAMPARATHKUDIYIL, NADUKURISU, B K PURAM (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. THOMAS K.GEORGE, KALAPPURACKAL, VADAYAMPADY (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. K.M.JAMES, MALAYAKARUVELIL, MEEMPARA (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. FR.C.K.JOHN COREPISCOPA, AGED 69, SON OF KORAH CHIRAKADAKUNNEL, KIZHUMURI (PO), RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35542 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 Order and Ext.P3 Application and peruse the same. ii) Declare that the order passed by the 1st Additional District Court, Ernakulam in Ext.P4 is outside the subject matter and scope of the Ext.P1 suit. Iii) Declare that the Ext.P5 application seeking to implement Ext.P4 order is outside the subject matter and scope of Ext.P1 suit. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the court below that no applications asking for reliefs that are outside the subject matter of Ext.P1 suit should be entertained. v) Reliefs and costs. 2. Petitioners are the defendants 1 and 3 to 7 in O.S No.28 of 2005 on the file of 1st Additional District Court, Ernakulam. Respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs in the above suit. The dispute relates to the administration of a church, convening of meetings of its committee etc. Entire evidence in the case was completed as on 18/12/2007. On some interlocutory applications moved by the plaintiffs from time to time, the disposal of the case is delayed indefinitely is the grievance espoused by the petitioners for the issue of a writ/direction/order to the court below for a speedy disposal. W.P.(C).No.35542 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. A report from the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ernakulam was called for as to the reason for the delay in disposal of the case. It is reported that after completion of the evidence, some persons have been impleaded as additional defendants 5 to 7 and the case now stands posted for the written statement on 19/12/2009. In view of the above circumstance, it is stated that the evidence has not been completed in the case. Pendency of some other interlocutory applications were also pointed out for the reason causing delay in disposal of the suit. The learned District Judge has submitted that the case can be disposed of within six months. From the report, it is not clear as to how additional defendants were impleaded after the entire recording of the evidence in the case was over, providing them an opportunity to file written statement in the case. Whatever that be, there will be a direction to the court below to make every endeavour to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE