Fr.Geevarghese vs St.George Jacobite Syrian Church on 9 February, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Fr.Geevarghese vs St.George Jacobite Syrian Church on 9 February, 2011

Bench: Harun-Ul-Rashid

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 546 of 2010()


1. FR.GEEVARGHESE, VALLIKATU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VARKEYKUNJU, S/O.VARKEY,
3. GEORGE KARIMPANACKAL,
4. CHARLES JACOB, S/O.JACOB,

                        Vs



1. ST.GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. FR.CHARLES MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW,

3. SHAJI ELIAS, S/O.ELIAS,

4. SAJI VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE,

5. ELDHOSE, S/O.ULAHANNAN,

6. KURIAKOSE CLEMIS METROPOLITAN BISHOP

7. HIS BEATITUDE BASELIOS THOMAS-I,

8. DR.THOMAS MAR ATHANASIOS METROPOLITAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :09/02/2011

 O R D E R
                       HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
              -------------------------------
                       C.R.P. NO. 546 OF 2010
              -------------------------------
             DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011

                              O R D E R

Respondents 1 to 4 in O.S.No.125/2010 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana are the revision petitioners. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18/6/2010 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kattappana granting sanction under Section 92 of the C.P.C. It is pointed out that neither notice was issued nor any reasons are stated for granting leave to institute the suit. The learned Sub Judge passed a single line order granting sanction to institute the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it has been held by the Apex Court in various decisions that the court is required to give an opportunity of being heard to the proposed defendants before granting leave to institute the suit under Section 92. The counsel also pointed out that the Apex Court in the decision in R.M. Narayana Chettiar and another v. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar and others ((1991) 1 SCC -2- C.R.P.No.546/2010

48) held that notice to the defendants has to be issued before granting leave. He also cited the decisions in B.S.Adityan and others v. V.B.Ramachandran Adityan and others ((2009) 4 SCC

720) and Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad (2008 (2) KLT 68) in support of the above proposition.

2. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that in the light of the above decisions of the Apex Court, the matter requires re-consideration. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Sub Judge, Kattappana shall hear and dispose of I.A.No.843/2010 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

C.R.P. is disposed of as above.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

kcv.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court