IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).NO. 2321 OF 2011(O) --------------------------------------- OS.43/2007 OF I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C.M. VARGHESE, S/O. LATE MATHAI, AGED 63 YEARS, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY DESOM, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAJI ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 34 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, MANAGATTOOR DESOM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, MUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN SRI.SUNIL JACOB RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.S. VARGHESE, S/O. SCARIA, KAVANACHOTTIL HOUSE, PALACKAMATTAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 2. V.M. GEORGE, S/O. MATHAI, VEDANKULANGARA HOUSE, MAGATTOOR KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 3. C.K. THAMPI, S/O. KURIAKOSE, CHUNDATHADATHIL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADI KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 4. ST. PETER'S AND ST. PAUL'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHRCH, KOLENCHERY REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR FR. VARGHESE EDUMARY, EDUMARY HOUSE, S/O. PAILY, KOLENCHERY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 5. REV. FR.VARGHESE, EDUMARY, S/O. PAILY, VICAR, ST.PETER'S AND ST.PAUL'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHRUCH, KOLENCHERY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 6. REV. FR. JACOB KURIAN, S/O. KURIAN, PRIEST, ST. PETER'S AND ST. PAUL'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, KOLENCHERY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 7. P.M. GEORGE, S/O. LATE SRI.MATHULLA, ELOOR PANNIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 8. K.A. THAMPI, S/O. ABRAHAM, KUNNATHUKULANTHUNKATTIL HOUSE, KINGINIMATTAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 9. T.V. PURAVATHU, S/O. VARKEY, THAMARACHALLIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 10. C.V. PAILY, S/O. VARKEY, KOCHIPUTHENPURAYIL, KARUKAPPILLY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 11. P.P.THOMAS, POOKKOLAYIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 12. A.V. PATHROSE, S/O. VARKEY, ATHIKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MANGATTOOR KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 13. THOMAS.M. ALIAS, S/O. ALIAS, MUNDAYIL HOUSE, PERINGOLA KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. PIN-682311. 14. JOGI GEORGE, S/O. C.M.GEORGE, CHOLATTU HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, VADAYAMPADY.P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-682308. 15. BABU PAUL, S/O. LATE P.M.PAILY PILLAI, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERY.P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-682311. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.2321 OF 2011 APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.43 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 24.5.2011 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN F.A.O. NO.393 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED MATTERS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.3030 OF 2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S. NO.43 OF 2007. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE THIRD DEFENDANT/6TH RESPONDENT IN I.A. NO.3030 OF 2011. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A. NO.3030 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.43 OF 2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2321 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners sought their impleadment, in O.S. No.43 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam as additional defendants to contest the suit. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit claiming that the Church in question is to be administered as per the Udampady of 1088 M.E., while contesting defendants claimed that administration and management should be in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. Learned Additional District Judge granted leave to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and following that, there was a Publication on 16.03.2011 under Order I Rule 8 of the Code. Pursuant to that petitioners filed Ext.P2, application for impleadment. That was dismissed as per Ext.P5, order which is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that neither the plaint nor the written statement mentioned about the original faith tracing to the origin of the Church itself, that issue arises for decision and hence presence of petitioners in the suit is necessary. It is submitted by learned counsel that the only reason O.P(C) No.2321 of 2011 -: 2 :- for learned Additional District Judge rejecting Ext.P2, application is that Division Bench of this Court had prescribed a time bound disposal of the suit. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 6, the contesting defendants would say that in various decisions this Court held that the Church is to be administered as per the 1934 Constitution and hence intervention of petitioners as additional defendants is not required. It is also submitted that at any rate petitioner cannot go against the plea raised in the plaint by respondents 1 to 3 that the Church is to be administered as per the Udampady of 1088 M.E. It is also pointed out that evidence in the case has started, examination of P.W.1 is over and evidence of respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs is also over. 3. It is true that the Publication under Order I Rule 8 of the Code was made only on 16.03.2011. But the suit was instituted in a representative capacity in the year, 2007. There were various proceedings in this Court concerning the matter and the Division Bench directed time bound disposal of the case. That apart, I must bear in mind that it is only now that petitioners have sought impleadment as additional defendants. Moreover, the dispute now involved in the suit is only whether management and administration of the Church should be in accordance with the Udampady of 1088 M.E., or in accordance with the 1934 O.P(C) No.2321 of 2011 -: 3 :- Constitution. If at all petitioners have a contention that parties to the suit are colluding to get a decree it is open to them to challenge the decree on the ground of fraud and collusion if there be. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Resultantly, the Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv