Kerala High Court
Jiju Varghese @ Fr. Jiju Varghese vs Fr. Reji Mankuzha on 21 January, 2020
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 1ST MAGHA, 1941
RFA.No.503 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS 8/2008 DATED
30-11-2018 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4:
1 JIJU VARGHESE @ FR. JIJU VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE,
AGED 48, THANNIKKOTTU HOUSE, KAIRADY VILLAGE, CHITTUR
TALUK, KAIRADY P.O., KAITHACHIRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 OU ELIAS, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE ULAHANNAN,
ONNUKALLIL HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 T.S REJI, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SCARIA, THACHELIKKARA
PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, VEETTUKAD P.O., PUTHENKADU,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4 P.M ISSAC, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW,
PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, PEECHI VILLAGE, MANNAMANGALAM
P.O., THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
SRI.SAJAN VARGHESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY
SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 5 TO 11 (PLAINTIFF NO.2 DIED):
1 FR. REJI MANKUZHA, S/O.PAILY, AGED 43, MANKUZHA
HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KODAKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680693
2 PAULOSE C.I., S/O.IPE, AGED 74,
CHEMMANAM HOUSE, PEECHI VILLAGE, MANNAMANGALAM,
KOLAMKUNDDU, THRISSUR. 680653
3 P.V.BABU, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 57, PERUMANITHADATHIL
HOUSE, PEECHI VILLAGE P.O. ASARIKADU, THRISSUR.680653
4 JIJU P.VARGHESE, S/O. P.M. GEEVARGHESE,
AGED 47, PALISSERY HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR - 680014
RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019
2
5 KURIAKOSE @ HG KURIAKOSE MAR EUSEBIUS,
S/O.GEORGE, AGED 48, BISHOP'S HOUSE, PANANCHERRY
VILLAGE, POOVANCHIRA P.O. CHUVANNAMANNU, TRICHUR
TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 680652
6 THOMAS MAR DIONYSIUS
NOW KNOWN AS HB BASELIUS THOMAS I CATHOLICOSE,
S/O.MATHOO, AGED 87, RESIDING AT PUTHENCRUIZ,
PUTHENCUIZ VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.682 308
7 JOHNSON V.T., S/O.THOMAS, AGED 55, VADAKKEKARA
PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PEECHI VILLAGE, MANNAMANGALAM,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680014
8 VARGHESE A.K., S/O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 53, AKASSERY
HOUSE, VETTUKAD P.O., PUTHOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680014
9 BABU P Y, S/O.YOHANNAN, AGED 54, PANTHAPILLIL
HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM P.O., MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680014.
10 YOHANNAN E.K., S/O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 59,
EEANTHUNIKKUNNATHIL HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680014.
11 JOSEPH C M, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 53, CHOLLAKKUZHI
HOUSE, VETTUKKAD P.O., PUTHOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680014.
ADDL. 12 FR.SUNNY PULIKKAKUDIYIL, S/O.P.P.KURIAKOSE,
AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULIKKAKUDIYIL HOUSE,
ELANADU.P.O., CHELAKKARA VIA., THRISSUR - 680 586
(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.01.2020 IN
I.A.NO.15/2019)
R1, R4, R12 BY SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
R2, R3 BY SRI.K.K.APPU & SRI.B.G.BHASKAR
R7 TO R11 SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN & SUNIL JACOB
R12 BY SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2020, ALONG WITH RFA.417/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 1ST MAGHA, 1941
RFA.No.417 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS 8/2008 DATED 30-11-2018 OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 5,6 & ADDL.DEFENDANTS 7 TO 11 :
1 [email protected] MAR EUSEBIUS, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.GEORGE, BISHOP'S HOUSE, PANANCHERRY VILLAGE,
POOVANCHIRA.P.O, CHUVANNAMANNU, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 THOMAS MAR DIONYSIUS, NOW KNOWN AS H.B BASELIUS
THOMAS I CATHOLICOSE, S/O.MATHOO, AGED 89 YEARS
RESIDING AT PUTHENCURIZ, PUTHENCURIZ VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3 JOHNSON.V.T., AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, VADAKKEKKARA PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
PEECHI VILLAGE, MANNAMANGALAM, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
4 VARGHESE.A.K., AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.KURIAKOSE, AKASSERY HOUSE, VETTUKAD.P.O.,
PUTHOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5 BABU.P.Y., AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.YOHANNAN, PANTHAPILLIL HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM
.P.O., MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
6 YOHANNAN E.K., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE,
EANTHUNIKKUNNATHIL HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
7 JOSEPH.C.M., AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.MATHAI, CHOLLAKKUZHI HOUSE, VETTUKKAD.P.O.,
PUTHOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN
RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019
4
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF 1, 4 TO 5 AND DEFENDANTS :
1 FR.REJI MANKUZHA, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.PAILY, MANKUZHA HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE,
KODAKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 BABU.P.V., S/O.VARKEY, AGED 57, PERUMANITHADATHIL
HOUSE, PEECHI VILLAGE.P.O, ASARIKADU, THRISSUR.
3 JIJU P.VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.P.M.GEEVARGHESE, PALLISSERY HOUSE,
MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR
4 JIJU VARGHESE (FR.JIJU VARGHESE), S/O.VARGHESE,
AGED 48, THANNIKKOTTU HOUSE, KAIRADY VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, KAIRADY.P.O, KAITHACHIRA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
5 O.U.ELIAS, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE ULAHANNAN, ONNUKALLIL HOUSE,
MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT
6 T.S.REJI, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SCARIA, THACHELIKKARA
PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, VETTUKAD.P.O., PUTHENKADU,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
7 P.M.ISSAC, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PALLIKUNNEL
HOUSE, PEECHI VILLAGE, MANNAMANGALAM.P.O., THRISSUR
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
SRI. ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER R1 TO R3 (CAVEATOR)
SRI.B.G.BHASKAR FOR R2
SRI.K.K.APPU FOR R2
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2020, ALONG WITH RFA.503/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals have been heard together since both of them challenge the judgment and decree in O.S.No.8/2008 on the files of the I Additional District Court, Ernakulam.
2. Both these appeals have been filed by the defendants in the suit, who assert that the court below ought not to have decreed it in the manner it has now done at the instance of the plaintiffs, who have been arrayed as respondents in these matters.
3. Before I answer the various allegations of the parties, I must first record certain aspects relating to the management and control of the various constituent Churches under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has spoken emphatically and conclusively in P.M.A.Metropolitan v. Moran Marthoma (AIR 1995 SC 2001) and K.S.Varghese and others v. Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church and others [2017 (3) KLT 261], that they are to be governed exclusively by the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church. Obviously therefore, any contention to the contrary cannot be countenanced by this Court and hence the issues in these appeals can only be answered within the circumscribed limits of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 6
4. Since I have heard RFA No.503/2018 first, I will record the submission of Sri.Sajan Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the appellants therein first. He has raised four essential contentions. The first being that the Church in question is not a constituent of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church; the second being that since the Church is not a party to the suit, the impugned decree cannot bind it; for the third that there were two earlier suits, namely O.S.No.19/2003 and O.S.No.4/2010, which were both dismissed and therefore, that the judgments and decree therein would operate as res judicata, thus rendering the present suit incapable of prosecution; and finally that the suit in question is not maintainable in the absence of the leave of the Court to sue under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the CPC').
5. In answer to the afore, Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Martin Jose, appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the contentions of Sri.Sajan Varghese are without any basis, since even going by the pleadings in the written statement and the testimony of DW1, the Church in question is a constituent of the Malankara Orthodox Church and consequently, deserving to be governed RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 7 only under the 1934 Constitution of the said Church.
6. As regards the contention that the impugned decree and judgment cannot bind the Church, since it is not a party, the learned senior counsel says that this is also without any relevance on account of the emphatic declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which operates under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and therefore that the presence or absence of the Church in the party array will be of no consequence at all.
7. As regards the earlier suits operating as res judicata, the learned senior counsel says that as far as O.S.No.19/2003 is concerned, it was dismissed without the Court granting the plaintiffs therein leave to sue under Section 92 of the CPC; while O.S.No.4/2010 had been filed by the Metropolitan seeking certain personal reliefs and therefore that its dismissal could not operate as a bar under the provisions of the CPC.
8. Finally, with respect to the question of leave under Section 92 of the CPC, Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel, submitted that such leave had already been granted by this Court through the orders in CRP No.306/2011 and RP No.986/2018 and therefore, that this question is also irrelevant in these appeals.
RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 8
9. After I heard the parties as afore in RFA No.503/2018, I proceeded to hear Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in RFA No.417/2019.
10. Interestingly, the appellants in this appeal have not pleaded that the Church in question is not a constituent of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The arguments of their learned counsel Sri.K.J.Kuriachan are confined to two issues:
firstly, that the suit is not maintainable on account of the legal inhibition under Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; and secondly, that the plaintiffs in the suit/respondents herein could not have been granted as relief by the court below, since they have not expressly sworn to their allegiance to the Patriarch of Antioch, which is thus in direct conflict with the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, thereafter, submitted that his clients also have a corollary contention to the above, that certain provisions of the 1934 Constitution itself goes contrary to the declarations of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, that this Court must read it down to that extent. Finally, Sri.K.J.Kuriachan submitted that in case this Court is not inclined to allow these appeals, then liberty may be granted to his clients to challenge the 1934 Constitution RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 9 appropriately and also to seek elections to the Managing Committee of the Church in question under the provisions of the said Constitution.
11. In response to the above, Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel, submitted that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 will not apply at all since, as is clear from its provisions, the said Act is designed to cover only those Churches which were in existence on the 15 th of August, 1947, while the Church involved in these appeals were established much after that date. As regards the second argument of Sri.Kuriachan regarding the owing of allegiance to the Patriarch is concerned, he says that this is a completely speculative submission, since none of his clients have ever declared that they do not owe allegiance to the Patriarch or that they intend to act against his spiritual authority. The learned senior counsel, in fact, says that since his clients accept the 1934 Constitution unequivocally, they also accept the spiritual primacy of Patriarch of Antioch but that the provisions of the 1934 Constitution, which confer power on the Catholicose to manage and control the Churches, have been now approved conclusively by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, it requires no further restatement by this Court. RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 10 Finally, Sri.S.Sreekumar submits that since there is no prayer by any of the parties that the 1934 Constitution must be read down in any manner and since none of them have sought for elections to be conducted to the Managing Committee of the Church, such reliefs may not be granted in these appeals, particularly when the appellants are only defendants and have not approached any Court for such reliefs.
12. I have considered the afore submissions and have also examined the evidence on record and the depositions of the witnesses.
13. Among the various contentions that have already been recorded above, one that requires my specific attention and which would certainly affect the nature of the conclusions that this Court has to enter, is the contention impelled by Sri.Sajan Varghese that the Church in question is not a constituent of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. I notice that this issue has been considered by the court below as issue No.5 and has been found against the appellants herein, who are the defendants in the suit.
14. For the purpose of assessment of this particular issue, I have examined various documents that have been marked on record, and in particular Ext.B12, which is the Constitution RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 11 and the minutes book of the meetings of the Parish Assembly (General Body) of the Church. In page 20 of Ext.B12, it is specifically admitted that the Constitution of the "Malankara Orthodox Suriyani Sabha" has been read over and accepted. Thereafter, in page 37 of the said book, it is specifically conceded that the Church had requested for pecuniary assistance from the Central Committee of the Malankara Sabha; and in fact, these aspects have been conceded to by DW1 without any reservation while he testified. It is also pertinent that various resolutions in this book are attested to by the Metropolitan of Kochi, who certainly is a functionary under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and it thus conjointly renders it indubitable that the Parishioners had, consequent to the establishment of the Church in the year 1954, unequivocally accepted it to be a constituent of the Malankara Church. Therefore, whatever be the contentions of Sri.Sajan Varghese to the contrary, especially that throughout the history of the Malankara Church, there were two factions and that one of the Jacobite factions had consecrated the Church in the year 1953 as an independent one, though owing allegiance to the Patriarch of Antioch - the Constitution which is available in Ext.B12 starts by saying that the scheme of RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 12 management of the Church is under the blessing of the Patriarch of Antioch and the Metropolitan. It also refers to the word "Sabha" at various places without defining it and a close reading of its provisions, which specifically mentions the Patriarch of Antioch, the Metropolitan and the "Sabha" would clearly establish without doubt that it refers to the establishment and management of the Church only as a constituent of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.
15. Of course, when I say as afore, I am also aware of the submissions of Sri.Sajan Varghese that when the plaintiffs asserted that this Church is a constituent of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, it is upon them to prove it, especially because his clients have denied the same in the written statement. However, the fact remains that, even going by the assertions and averments in the pleadings on record of the defendants, they concede that the Church was consecrated under the blessings of the Patriarch of Antioch, to be governed by the Metropolitan through a Vicar and that if there is any dispute with respect to the manner or control of the Church or with the religious rites to be followed, the decisions of the Metropolitan would be final. All these clearly go to show that the Church in question can only be construed as a constituent RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 13 of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and therefore, the submissions of Sri.Sajan Varghese to this extent only deserve to be repelled.
16. Once I thus find that the Church in question is a constituent of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, then all the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants in these appeals can only be seen to be corollary and consequential.
17. The fact that the Church is not a party to the suit, as asserted by Sri.Sajan Varghese, would be of no consequence, as rightly stated by Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel, since once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared through P.M.A.Metropolitan (supra) and K.S.Varghese (supra), that the said Church can be governed only by the 1934 Constitution, it operates as a complete bar of any further contention against it under the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has subsequently directed all Courts to ensure that no declarations are issued with respect to any Church under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church contrary to the declarations made by them.
18. As regards the question of res judicata as pleaded by RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 14 Sri.Sajan Varghese, I again find force in the submissions of Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel, that O.S.No.19/2003 had been dismissed as being not maintainable since it had not obtained the leave of the Court, while O.S.No.4/2010 had been filed by the then Metropolitan seeking certain personal reliefs. Therefore, the dismissal of these suits can never operate as a res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC.
19. Finally, as regards the contention that the suit is not maintainable on account of the absence of leave under Section 92 of the CPC is concerned, it is without doubt that this Court had, in CRP No.306/2011 and RP No.986/2018, granted such leave and therefore, these contentions are no longer relevant.
20. Coming to the submissions of Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, I have no doubt that the provisions of the Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 can never apply to this case because it is conceded by the defendants themselves that the Church was consecrated only in the year 1953, which is much after India obtained its independence on 15 th of August, 1947. Since the said Act is intended to cover only those religious institutions that were in existence as on 15 th of August, 1947, by no stretch of imagination can the provisions of Section 4 thereof operate as an embargo against the suit in question. RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 15
21. That brings me to the adjunct arguments of Sri.K.J.Kuriachan that the defendants themselves had not accepted the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch or his supremacy and therefore, that the suit ought not to have been decreed in their favour. As rightly contended by Sri.S.Sreekumar, this submission is purely speculative in its nature, because nowhere in the pleadings do I even find a whisper by the plaintiffs that they do not accept the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch; and on the contrary, they concede that they accept the 1934 Constitution and consequently, that all its clauses are binding on them, which includes the dictate that the Patriarch of Antioch shall be the spiritual primate. I, therefore, see no discernible reason why I should consider these submissions as also the adscititious contentions of Sri.K.J.Kuriachan that I must read down the 1934 Constitution in any manner, especially because, going by paragraph 116 to 120 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Varghese (supra), these aspects have already been considered and answered conclusively.
22. That brings me to the close of this judgment since I have already answered all the contentions raised by the parties, with the sole remaining aspect being whether this RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 16 Court should now direct elections to be conducted to the Managing Committee of the Church, as requested by Sri.K.J.Kuriachan. I am afraid that this is also not an issue that has arisen directly in these appeals and therefore, that it would not be proper or prudent on my part to make any provisions for elections at this stage and I leave it to the parties to invoke appropriate remedies, as may be available to them, for such purpose, untrammeled by any of my observations in this judgment.
These appeals are thus closed and in the nature of the circumstances that I have noticed above, I deem it appropriate not to make any order as to costs and to direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.
After I dictated this judgment, Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel, brought to my notice that, through the order dated 24.10.2019, the Church in question has already been given in possession and management to the plaintiffs. He prays that this order be confirmed. I have examined the order referred to by Sri.S.Sreekumar and it is without doubt that the second defendant in the suit had been directed to surrender the key of the Church before the Trial Court on or before 31.10.2019, with a consequential direction to the said Court to RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 17 hand over the key to the first plaintiff. Since I am told by both sides that this has been done, I deem it appropriate that the order of this Court, dated 24.10.2019, be confirmed. It is so ordered.
Stu Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019
18
APPENDIX OF RFA 503/2018
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28.01.2019 CAME IN
MATHRUBHUMI DAILY.
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.06.2008 ON THE FILE OF RDO, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.08.2008 OF RDO, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SETTLEMENT DATED 18.01.2019 BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FACTIONS BEFORE THE TRICHUR DISTRICT AUTHORITIES. TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA BEARING NO.48/PR.AP/19 DATED 18.11.2019.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 24.08.2019 FILED BEFORE TRICHUR DISTRICT COLLECTOR BY JIJU P.VARGHESE.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION DATED 21.12.2018.
ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PETITION NO.164392/18 DATED 22.12.2018.
ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DATED 22.12.2018.
ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE.
ANNEXURE R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR ACCEPTING THE REPRESENTATION.
ANNEXURE R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.12.2018 FOR ACCEPTING THE REQUEST.
ANNEXURE R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.01.2019.
RFA.Nos.503 OF 2018 & 417 of 2019 19 ANNEXURE R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECISION DATED 18.01.2019 CONVENED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE.