IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3110 of 2011(O) ---------------------------------- OS.343/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA ................................................................................................ PETITIONER(S)/(1ST DEFENDANT/1ST RESPONDENT): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHARAMANGALAM EAST N.S.S. KARAYOGAM (1617), KOCHANAKULANGARA, MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 525, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.G.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SECRETARY, P.R.RADHAKRISHNA MENON AND TREASURER K.KOMALAM PILLAI. BY ADV. SRI. MOHAN C. MENON RESPONDENT(S)/(PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER AND DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS 2-4): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOCHANAKULANGARA DEVASWOM BY ITS TRUSTEE, K.C.M.FAMILY TRUST (153/2009), MUHAMMA, PIN-688 525, BY ITS PRESIDENT P.OMANAKUTTAN, SECRETARY C.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN & TREASURER R.SIVAPRASAD. 2. CHERTHALA TALUK N.S.S.UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 524. 3. NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, N.S.S.HQ, CHAGANASSERI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 101. 4. THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 525. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DS OP(C).No. 3110 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.2664/2011 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 05.09.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 05.09.2011 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT/ADDITIONAL 4TH DEFENDANT P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2011 IN I.A. NO.2664/2011 P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF N.S.S. KARAYOGAM DATED 18.07.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE DS THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3110 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT First defendant in O.S.No.343 of 2009 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Cherthala is the petitioner challenging Ext.P4, order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the first respondent/plaintiff to make a publication under Rule 8 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code”). First respondent filed a suit against petitioner/first defendant seeking mandatory injunction to direct it to re-entrust the Devaswom and its properties to the first respondent/plaintiff, described as the Kochanakulangara Devaswom. According to the petitioner/first defendant, it is administering the Devaswom from the year, 1949 onwards and while so, some of the erstwhile disgruntled office bearers of the Devaswom formed a family trust in the year, 2009 claiming that their forefathers were the hereditary trustees of the temple. Based on that the present suit was instituted. It is pointed out by learned counsel that learned Munsiff has passed several interlocutory orders in the matter and one order specified that expenses of the temple shall not go beyond a particular limit. Petitioner challenged that order in this Court and this Court by O.P(C).No.3110 of 2011 -: 2 :- judgment dated 16.03.2011 permitted the Devaswom to incur expenses up to a limit of `.10,000/- and for the further expenses if any to be incurred, to obtain permission of the trial court. It is submitted that there was also a direction to dispose of the suit this year itself. Thereafter the fourth defendant claiming to be a necessary party as they are interested in the subject matter of the suit got impleaded and filed written statement. Case was posted for trial in the list on 03.09.2011. Then came Ext.P1, application under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code. That application was resisted by petitioner by Ext.P2, objection and by the fourth defendant by Ext.P3, objection. Learned Munsiff passed Ext.P4, order allowing the application. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no scope for application of Order I, Rule 8 of the Code since the said provision applies only when there are numerous persons interested in the subject matter either to sue or be sued and it is not possible to ascertain them. It is pointed out by learned counsel that Ext.P3, objection raised by the fourth defendant has named the Karayogams which are interested in the subject matter and which could be said to be necessary parties to the litigation. Since the persons interested in the subject matter are O.P(C).No.3110 of 2011 -: 3 :- named, there is no scope for Rule 8 of Order I of the Code, it is argued. 3. But, it is relevant to note that in the written statement it is pleaded that it was not a case of Charamangalam Nair Karayogam ceasing to exist but, it is learned that it is amalgamated with other NSS karayogams. It is also stated that within the local limits of the said karayogam, other NSS karayogams are also constituted and they are also interested in the subject matter. They are necessary parties and the suit is bad for non joinder of those parties. It is stated in Ext.P1, application that first respondent is not aware of those parties or their details and addresses and it is not reasonably practicable to implead them and give notice to them. 4. True that in Ext.P3, objection to Ext.P1, application a different stand is taken by the fourth defendant but, merely for the reason of objection raised in Ext.P3, opportunity to make a publication under Rule 8 of Order I of the Code need not be declined to the first respondent. At any rate publication will not do any harm to the petitioner or other defendants except of course regarding the time required for disposal of the case. That is a matter which the trial court has to take care of. I am not O.P(C).No.3110 of 2011 -: 4 :- inclined to think that in view of Ext.P3, objection raised by the fourth defendant, learned Munsiff ought to have disallowed the prayer. In that view of the matter I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P4, order. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Ext.P5, certificate to contend that petitioner alone is interested in the subject matter. That of course is a matter which has to be revealed in evidence having regard to the contentions raised by the first respondent/plaintiff. This original petition is dismissed. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-