IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31528 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.8/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR @ JAYACHANDRAN, S/O. BHARGAVI THAMBI, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, WADAKKANCHERI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.KESAVAN NAIR, MR.K.G.CLEETUS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. 2. M.DIVAKARAN KARTHA, S/O. BHARATHAN THAMBAI, MOOPIL STHANI, VALIALUKKAL GROUP DEVASWOM, THANKAM NIVAS, VARAVOOR VILLAGE, WADAKKANCHERI. 3. BHARGAVI THAMBAI, W/O. PRABHAKARAN, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, WADAKKANCHERY. 4. VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O. BHARGAVI THAMBAI, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, WADAKKANCHERY. 5. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. BHARGAVI THAMBAI, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, WADAKKANCHERY. 6. KOMALAVALLI THAMBAI, D/O. BHARATHI THAMBAI, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, HANUMAN MUKKU, P.O.KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. Kss ..2/- ....2...... WPC.NO.31528/2009 O 7. SAJEEV KARTHA, S/O. KOMALAVALLI THAMBAI, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, HANUMAN MUKKU, P.O.KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. MANOJ KARTHA, S/O. KOMALAVALLI THAMBAI, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, HANUMAN MUKKU, P.O.KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 9. AMMINI THAMBAI, S/O. KOCHUNNI KARTHA, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, HANUMAN MUKKU, P.O.KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 10. SOBHANA THAMBAI, D/O. AMMINI THAMBAI, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, HANUMAN MUKKU, P.O.KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 11. PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL NALINI THAMBAI, D/O. AMMINI THAMBAI, PANAMUKKATH MALIEKKAL, HANUMAN MUKKU, P.O.KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, SC,CDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31528/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 29/04/2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.8 OF 2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. P3: COPY OF PETITION DTD. 15/10/2009. P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 14/10/09 ISSUED BY THE COUNCILLOR, THRISSUR CORPORATION SHOWING THE DATE OF DEATH OF SRI.RADHAKRISHNA KURUP. P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 19/10/09 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31528 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a direction to the District Court, Thrissur to make immediate interim arrangements for management of the temples under the Kanimangalam Valialukkal Devaswom. ii) To issue a direction to the District Court, Thrissur to consider the circumstance that the suit O.S.No.8 of 2005 filed in that court has become infructuous.” 2. Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.8 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur, instituted under Section 89(1) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. First respondent in the writ petition is the first defendant and second respondent, first plaintiff in the suit. The other respondents are co-defendants in the suit. Second plaintiff, it is submitted, had passed away. Suit has been filed challenging the appointment of the petitioner/second defendant as the trustee of Valialukkal Group Devaswom having administration over six W.P.(C).No.31528 of 2009 - O 2 temples. The court in which the suit is at present pending has no regular sitting for the last several months, according to the petitioner. Since the second plaintiff had passed away the suit has become infructuous and for an order by the court for dismissal of the suit as being infructuous the petitioner is stated to have filed a petition along with an advance petition. Those petitions are not taken up for consideration, and another petition moved before the District Court to take up that case or transfer it to some other District Court of competent court on the administration side is also not being taken up, is the grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the petition for issuing a writ/direction/order to the District Court, Thrissur for consideration of the petitions filed by him in the suit. A report from the learned District Judge, Thrissur had been called for with respect to the petitions stated to have been moved by the petitioner in Ext.P2 suit. It is reported that I.A.No.2775 of 2009 filed by the petitioner stands posted for enquiry. From the nature of the reliefs canvassed by the petitioner, I find the Principal District Court if it proceeds to pass W.P.(C).No.31528 of 2009 - O 3 an order on the judicial side has to necessarily hear all the parties involved in the proceedings and if that course is followed it will consume a lot of time and the grievance canvassed by the petitioner would continue for quite some time. Considering the facts and circumstances disclosed, I direct the District Judge either to withdraw the case to the Principal District Court or transmit it to some other District Court of competent jurisdiction, on the administration side, for disposal of the interlocutory applications with notice to both parties, as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above observations, writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-