IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24963 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- [OS.NO.379/2008 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SIVASANKARA MENON, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA MENON, RESIDING AT 70 LINK MANNER, QRS ROAD, KOCHI-18, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. SREE BHUVANESWARI TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ACTING TRUSTEE SIVASANKARA MENON. BY ADVS. MR.JACOB ABRAHAM, SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. M.SATHI DEVI, AGED 72 YEARS, D/O.LATE GOPALA MENON, MECHERIL HOUSE, BHUVANESWARI TEMPLE ROAD, POONITHURA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM. 2. VISWA HINDU PARISHAD, KERALA, REG. NO.135/1978, NO.90, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, (STATE OFFICE, PAVAKKULAM TEMPLE COMPLEX, KALOOR, KOCHI-17). 3. REKHA, AGED 35 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KRISHNA PANICKER, KRISHNA VIHAR, VALLORE ROAD, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. RESHMI, AGED 30 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KRISHNA PANICKER, KRISHNA VIHAR, VALLORE ROAD, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. W.P.(C). NO.24963/2009-O: 5. M.SREEDEVI, AGED 70 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KRISHNA MENON, MECHERIL HOUSE, VALLORE ROAD, PUNITHURA ROAD, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 6. SARALA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF KRISHNA MENON, MECHERIL HOUSE, VALLORE ROAD, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 7. RAJALAKHMI, DAUGHTER OF KRISHNA MENON, MECHERIL HOUSE, VALLORE ROAD, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 8. M.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SON OF KRISHNA MENON, MECHERIL HOUSE, VALLORE ROAD, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 9. GOPINATHA MENON, SON OF KRISHNA MENON, MECHERIL HOUSE, VALLORE ROAD, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24963 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief. Call for the records relating to Ext.P6 and quash the same and direct the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam to issue a commission as prayed for in Ext.P1. 2. Petitioners are defendants 8 and 11 in O.S No.379/2008 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for declaration and injunction, and the first respondent is the plaintiff, and the other respondents are codefendants. The dispute involved in the suit related to a temple and its properties. In the above suit, the present petitioners moved an W.P.(C).No.24963 OF 2009 Page numbers application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to be present and supervise the offerings in the bhandarums in the temple as and when they are opened by the officials of the temple. That application was initially allowed by the court appointing an advocate commissioner. One among the defendants in the suit moved an application for reviewing that order. Keeping that review petition pending it is the grievance of the petitioners that the court reviewed the previous order appointing the advocate commissioner for the purpose of supervising the collection in the bhandarums of the temple. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances W.P.(C).No.24963 OF 2009 Page numbers presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offerings in the temple are misappropriated. The court after being prima facie satisfied that the appointment of a commissioner is necessary to be present at the time of opening of the bhandaramus, for proper accounting, had initially allowed the application. Though a review petition was filed, without examining its merits, Ext.P6 order was passed, submits the counsel. After going through Ext.P6 order, I find the court cannot be found fault with for reviewing its previous order to appoint an advocate commissioner. The court cannot have continuous supervision in the manner sought for by the petitioners in respect of the day to day affairs connected with the administration of the temple. If at all the petitioners have got a case that the temple properties are misappropriated and if that can be substantiated by them by convincing materials, it is open to them to seek W.P.(C).No.24963 OF 2009 Page numbers for appropriate orders / directions from the court including the appointment of a receiver to administer the temple. I make it clear, I am not expressing any view on the merit of such a request if made has to be examined with reference to the lights of the parties and to be disposed only after hearing all parties. Whatever that be, no interference with Ext.P6 order is called for. So much so, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv