Kerala High Court
Jerusalem Marthoma Church vs Reggie Abraham on 1 March, 2013
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934
OP(C).No. 792 of 2013 (O)
------------------------------------
IA. NOS.4528 &4529/2011, 6470 & 6471/2012 IN OS. 600/2010 OF IST ADDL.SUB COURT,
ERNAKULAM.
.........
PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS IN THE SUIT:
-------------------------------------
1. JERUSALEM MARTHOMA CHURCH,
ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRESENT VICAR, REV ABRAHAM THOMAS
RESIDING AT 3-C, JURUSALEM RESIDENCY, ELAMKULAM
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 682020.
2. REV. T.V. GEROGE,
(PRESENTLY) VICAR, MARTHOMA VALIAPALLY, ELANTHUR
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
RESIDING AT THE CHURCH PARASONAGE, ELANTHUR
PATHANAMTHITTA 689643
3. DR. EUYAKIM MAR COORILOS,
BISHOP OF MARTHOMA SYRIAN CHURCH
PRESENTLY AUXILIARY BISHOP OF NIRANAM- MARAMON DIOCESE
RESIDING AT PULATHEEN, THIRUVALAL 689101
BY ADVS.SRI.CHACKO GEORGE (SR.)
SRI.H.RAMANAN
SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM)
SRI.JAMES JOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT:
------------------------------------------------------------
REGGIE ABRAHAM,
S/O T. THOMAS ABRAHAM, SHARON, 29/614
VYTTILA P.O, ERNAKULAM- KOCHI 682019
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
OP(C) 792/2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF ANNEMDED PLAINT IN OS. 600/2010 OF IST ADDL.SUB JUDGE'S COURT,
ERNAKULAM DTD. 5.8.2010.
P2:- COPY OF JOINT WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS DTD. 15.10.10.
P3:- COPY OF DRAFT ISSUED SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DTD. 18.12.10.
P4:-COPY OF IA. NO.4528/11 FOR LEAVE TO DELIVER INTERRROGATORIES 26.7.11.
P5:-COPY OF IA. 4529/11 FOR DIRECTION TO DEFENDATS TO ANSWER
INTERROGATORIES DTD. 26.7.11.
P6;- COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY DEFT-2 T DT.D 23.8.11.
P7:-COPY OF IA.6331/12 FILED BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS SEEKING TIME TO
ANSWER INTERROGATORIES. DTD. 12.11.12.
P8:-COPY ORDER IN IA.4528/11 DTD. 2.11.12.
P9:- COPY OF ORDER IN IA. 4529/11 DTD. 2.11.12.
P10:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF ANSWER BY DEFT.-2 DTD. 20.11.12.
P11:- COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF ANSWER BY DEFT-3 DTD. 20.11.12.
P12:- COPY OF IA. 6471/12 FILED BY DEFT. 2 STRIKE DOWN INTERROGATORIES DTD.
20.11.12.
P13:- COPY OF IA. 6470/12 FILED BY DEFT. 3 STRIKE DOWN INTERROGATORIES DTD.
20.11.12.
P14- COPY OF ORDER IN IA. 6470/12 DTD. 4.2.13.
P15:- COPY ORDER IN IA. 6471/12 DT.D 4.2.13.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
TSS
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Original Petition (Civil) No.792 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Respondent appears through counsel.
2. Challenge is to Exts.P8, P9, P14 & P15 orders on I.A. Nos.4528 & 4529 of 2011 and I.A. Nos. 6470 & 6471 of 2012 in O.S. No.600 of 2010 of First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam.
3. Respondent has filed the suit challenging disciplinary proceeding against him and for recovery of damages. He filed I.A. Nos.4528 and 4529 of 2011 for permission to serve interrogatories on petitioners/defendants and for a direction to them to answer the same.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that though detailed objections were preferred to I.A. Nos.4528 and 4529 of 2011, it is without considering the objections that learned Sub Judge has passed Exts.P8 & P9 orders.
5. Petitioners filed I.A.Nos.6470 and 6471 of 2012 to O P (C) No.792 of 2013 -2- delete the interrogatories. Those applications were posted for objection on 04.02.2013. It is submitted that even before the objections came before learned Sub Judge, those applications were dismissed for default as if petitioners were required to do something on the said applications on that day.
6. I have gone through Exts.P8 & P9 orders and find that it is without referring to the objection petitioners preferred that the said orders are passed. At least the orders do not reflect that learned Sub Judge has considered the objection and was satisfied that it is necessary to serve interrogatories on petitioners and if so, on what all matters. In the way Exts.P8 & P9 orders are passed, I am constrained to set aside the same and remit I.A. Nos.4528 & 4529 of 2011 for fresh consideration and decision.
7. So far as Exts.P14 & P15 orders are concerned, it is seen that I.A. Nos.6470 and 6471 of 2012 are dismissed as if petitioners were not present. Learned counsel submits that counsel for petitioners was present and there was no O P (C) No.792 of 2013 -3- 'default' on the part of petitioners as they were not required to do anything on the day I.A. Nos.6470 and 6471 of 2012 came up for hearing. In the way those applications are disposed of, those orders as well call for interference. Exts.P14 and P15 orders are also liable to be set aside.
Resultantly this original petition is allowed as under:
(1) Exts.P8, P9, P14 & P15 orders are set aside. (2) I.A. Nos.4528 & 4529 of 2011 and 6470 & 6471 of 2012 in O.S. No.600 of 2010 of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam are remitted to that court for fresh decision on merit, after hearing both sides.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/