IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11760 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1738,1708.1737/08 IN OS.57/2003 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ST.THOMAS VALIYAPALLY RANNI, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, ST.THOMAS VALIYAPPALLY, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. P.T.PUNOOSE TRUSTEE OF ST.THOMAS VALIYAPPALLY. 3. C.K.KURIAKOSE, SECRETARY OF ST.THOMAS VALIYAPPALLY, RANNY. 4. REV. FR. A.P.JOSEPH ADMINISTRATOR, MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM. 5. SRI.KURIAKOSE, MAR SEVARIOUS MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.MR.THOMAS ABRAHAM, MR.DIPU.R., SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW, MR.K.S.HARIDAS, MR.V.RENJITH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANIL ABRAHAM, KADACKAL VEEDU, PUZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. K.M.ABRAHAM, KADACKAL VEEDU, PUZHAVANGADI VILLAGE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.11760/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT IN O.S.NO.57/2003. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 17/06/2008 IN WPC.NO.10539 OF 2008. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 9/12/2008 IN I.A.NO.1738/07IN O.S.NO.57/03 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 9/12/2008 IN I.A.NO.1708/07 IN O.S.NO.57/03 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 9/12/2008 IN I.A.NO.1737/07 IN O.S.NO.57/03 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 11760 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December 2009. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs. i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 orders dated 09.12.2008 in I.A. No.1738/07, 1708/07 and 1737/07 in OS 57/2003 on the file of the Munsiff's Court Ranni and set aside the same and ii) grant such other and further reliefs as deemed by this Hon'ble Court fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. Petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.57 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ranni. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the above suit. Suit is filed directing the defendants to issue a marriage certificate of the first plaintiff after registering it in the relevant registers of the first defendant church, a declaration that the plaintiffs and their family members are members of the Edavaka of the first defendant and also for damages. The case set forth by the plaintiffs for the W.P.(C). No. 11760 OF 2009 2 reliefs raised in the suit is that five days before the marriage of the first plaintiff proposed to be held in the first defendant church in which the plaintiffs claimed to be members of the Edavaka, a communication was served on the first plaintiff that the marriage could not be conducted in the first defendant church since the plaintiffs and their family members are not members of the Knanaya Community. In view of the communication as aforesaid, the marriage was conducted in a different church and later the suit was instituted claiming the reliefs as aforesaid. Resisting the suit claim the defendants filed a written statement in which among other contentions, the maintainability of the suit was also challenged. In the present writ petition, orders passed by the learned Munsiff on applications moved by the plaintiffs allowing them to effect publication under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that the suit is deemed as having been instituted against the first defendant church in a representative capacity, for an on behalf of all the Edavaka members of the Knanaya Community, and another seeking production of some registers maintained by W.P.(C). No. 11760 OF 2009 3 the first defendant church, are challenged by the defendants. An application for amendment of the plaint allowed by the court negativing the objections raised by the defendants is also challenged in the present petition. Ext.P4 is the copy of the order passed by the learned Munsiff granting permission to the plaintiff to publish notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ext.P5 is the copy of the order directing production of documents by the defendants and Ext.P6, the copy of the order allowing the amendments sought for. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Inviting my attention to the contentions raised by the defendants in Ext.P2 written statement, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted the learned Munsiff has passed Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders without examining the case canvassed by the plaintiff for the reliefs set up in the suit. According to the counsel, the defendants in their written statement have conceded that at one point of time by mistake, the plaintiffs had been treated as members of the Knanaya Community and some entries thereof had been made in the registers maintained by the church. Later W.P.(C). No. 11760 OF 2009 4 realising it was a mistake, their names were removed after making necessary enquiries. When such an admission has been made, at this stage of the suit before evidence is let in the case, it was premature to order for discovery of the documents, by production of registers in the custody of the defendants on the request made by the plaintiff, is the submission of the counsel. Permission sought for to publish a notice under Order 1 of Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure which had been allowed by the court below, according to the counsel, should have been dismissed since no such permission was sought before institution of the suit. Amendment sought for by the plaintiff is also challenged as highly belated causing prejudice to the defendants. On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that no interference with Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders is warranted in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court as there is no impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional infirmity in the orders passed by the court below. 4. So far as Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff according permission to the plaintiffs to publish notice under W.P.(C). No. 11760 OF 2009 5 Order 1 of Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure the objection raised that it should have been sought for before institution of the suit cannot be approved since subsequent application after filing the suit seeking conversion as a representative suit can be allowed. To avoid multiplicity of suits and to give a quietus to the controversy where interests of innumerable persons are involved in the lis permission is accorded to sue for or against in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Object of the provision is that interested parties on given notice of the suit by publication can join parties and canvass their objections, if any, to the reliefs claimed in the suit. All interested parties are deemed to be econominee parties even if they are not made parties in their individual capacity, when such publication is made under the rule. In the nature of the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the present suit, no doubt, the members of the Edavaka of the first defendant church, all of them, can be treated as having some interest in the decision to be rendered in the suit. That being so, permission sought for by the plaintiff to sue the first defendant church in the W.P.(C). No. 11760 OF 2009 6 representative capacity is proper, valid and correct and permission thereof was sought for only after the institution of the suit cannot be a ground for declining such permission. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the learned Munsiff directing the defendants to produce the records sought for by the plaintiffs. The only objection that has been raised by the defendants in producing such documents was that the records are bulky. Submission made by the learned counsel that the entitlement of the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration has to be established before any order can be passed for production of the records cannot be given much merit when Rule 12 of Order 11 contemplate that the request for discovery of documents can be ordered by the Court where it is satisfied that such production 'relate to any matter in question involved in the suit or proceeding'. In the written statement, the defendants have conceded to the inclusion of the plaintiffs in the registers as members of Knanaya Community, but, with an explanation that it was a mistake, can never be treated as a sufficient ground to decline the request made by the plaintiffs for production of the registers, where it is W.P.(C). No. 11760 OF 2009 7 prima facie shown that scrutiny and examination of the documents requested for may be necessary for a fair and proper disposal of the suit on merits in the nature of the controversy arising for adjudication. At the most the party who seeks production of the documents can be directed to bear the expenses for production of the documents before the Court. Perusing Ext.P6 order by which the amendments sought for by the plaintiffs were allowed, having a regard to the nature of controversy arising for consideration in the suit, I find the amendments allowed by the Court are proper and correct, and no interference with that order is also called for. In short, Exts. P4, P5 and P6 orders do not call for any interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE kkms/