IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21191 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2238/2010 IN OS.452/2008 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RADHA VELAYUDHAN, KARAPILLY HOUSE, PASRIYARAM VILLAGE, PARIYARAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SARALA SASI, KARAPILLY HOUSE, POTTA VILLAGE, MOSCO DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KATTIPOKKAM DESOM, KARIPILLY HOUSE, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE-680 307 2. VASUDEVAN, S/O.SANKUPILLA, KARIPILLY HOUSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM. AND POST-680721 3. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KARIPILLY SANKUPILLAI PARIYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM. AND POST-680721 4. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.KARIPILLY AYYAPPAKUTTY, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, DESOM. AND POST-680721 5. SREEDHARMA SASTA TEMPLE TRUST, PARIYARAM VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT KRISHNANKUTTY S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KATTIPOKKAM DESOM, KARIPILLY HOUSE, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.PARIYARAM P O, 680721 ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM FOR R2 AND R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.21191 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 04th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is in challenge of Ext.P5, order on I.A.No.2238 of 2010 refusing leave for respondent to sue in a representative capacity. The suit concerned administration of a temple. According to the petitioners/plaintiffs, respondents/defendants are making unauthorised constructions and interfering with administration of the temple collecting donations from the local people for which they have no right. It is also the contention of petitioners that the temple belonged to Veerasaiva community and it is administered by elected members from the general body of that community. Respondents contended that suit is bad for not getting leave of court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They also resisted the suit on other grounds. While so I.A.No.182 of 2009 for amendment of plaint to incorporate prayer for declaration that only elected members from the general body of Veerasaiva community have right to administer the temple. That application was allowed and amendment was carried out. In the meantime case was referred to the Adalath with the hope of settlement between the parties. As nothing transpired W.P.C.No.21191 of 2010 : 2 : in the Adalath case was send back to this court. Thereon respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed additional written statement in answer to the amendment on 07-06-2010. It is thereon that petitioners filed I.A.No.2238 of 2010 seeking leave of court to institute suit in representative's capacity. That application was dismissed by Ext.P5, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that dismissal of I.A.No.2238 of 2010 is not warranted. Counsel for respondents contend that in spite of giving several opportunity for petitioners to take necessary steps no such application was preferred and attempt is however to prolong the litigation. 2. The only ground to disallow I.A.No.2238 of 2010 is delay in filing that application. No doubt there is some delay in filing the application and it is seen from Ext.P5, order that case was posted for steps on several dates but no such application came during that time. But I must bear in mind that in the meantime plaint was amended and the matter was sent to the Adalath for mediation and thereafter it came back to this court. It is thereafter that respondents filed additional written statement. The delay involved in filing I.A.No.2238 of 2010 can be referable to the said circumstance. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to think that on the grounds pleaded by petitioners W.P.C.No.21191 of 2010 : 3 : their request to sue in a representative capacity should have been allowed. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) Ext.P5, order is set aside. (ii) I.A.No.2238 of 2010 filed by petitioners is allowed and petitioners are allowed to sue as prayed for in I.A.No.2238 of 2010. (iii) The follow up orders in this regard shall be issued by the learned Sub Judge as provided under law. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-