Kerala High Court
Fr. Geevarghese Vallikattil vs St.George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox ... on 23 January, 2015
Bench: Antony Dominic, A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937
FAO.No. 45 of 2015 ()
----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN IANO.829/2014 IN OS NO.177/2013 OF SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA
DATED 23.01.2015
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6:
------------------------
1. FR. GEEVARGHESE VALLIKATTIL, AGED 32,
VADAKODU VILLAGE, KOLENCHERI PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
2. VARKEYKUNJU, S/O. VARKEY,AGED 52,
KIZHAKKEDATHU, CHELACHUVADU PO
KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT
3. GEORGE KARIMPANACKAL
S/O. POULOSE, AGED 42, KEERITHODU PO
KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT
4. CHARLES JACOB, S/O JACOB, AGED 40,
PAYYALIL HOUSE, KEERITHODU PO, PUNNAYAR,
KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT
5. DR. THOMAS MAR ATHANASIOS
METROPOLITAN, BISHOP'S HOUSE, MOOVATTUPUZHA
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SENIORADVOCATE)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 5 &7:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ST.GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,
KATHIPARATHADAM, CHELACHUVADU
IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE TOJAN VARGHESES
S/O. LATE VARGHESE, AGED 28, ERACHERIL HOUSE
KANJIKUZHY KARAAND VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT
PIN- 685 602.
(*) 2. FR. GEEVARGHESE , AGED 35 YEARS
S/O/ VARGHESE, KALARIKUNNEL HOUSE
VICAR, ST.GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
KATHIPARATHADAM, CHELACHUVADU, IDUKKI
PIN-685 602 (DELETED)
FAONO.45/2015 2
3. SHAJI ELIAS, S/O ELIAS, AGED 42,
NIRAVATHU HOUSE, CHELACHUVADU PO,
CHURULI, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT
PIN-685 602.
4. SAJI VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE , AGED 35 YEARS
KANJIRAKKATTU HOUSE, CHELACHUVADU PO,
KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT
PIN-685 602.
5. ELDHOSE, S/O. ULAHANNAN, AGED 49
VETTUCHIRAYIL HOUSE, CHELACHUVADU PO, CHURULI
KANJIKUZHY, IDUKKI DISTRICT
PIN-685 602
6. HIS BEATITUDE BASELIOS THOMAS -1,
CATHOLICOS, METROPOLITAN TRUSTEE,
PATRIARCH IGNATIUSE ZAKKA II WAS CENTRE( PATRIARCH CENTRE)
PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN-682308
7. H.G. ZACHARIAS MOR PHILOXINOS METROPOLITAN,
MOR GREGORIAN CENTRE,
THOOTHOOTI, THIRUVANCHOOR PO, KOTTAYAM -686019
(*)"R2" IS DELETED ATTHE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2015 IN
IA NO.357/15.
R1,R3 TO R5 BYADV.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
R1,R3 TO R5 BYADV.SRI.LIJU. M.P
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2016, ALONG WITH WA. 1413/2014, THE COURT ON 18-02-2016 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
--------------------------------------
F.A.O.No.45 of 2015
&
W.A.No.1413 of 2014
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
Hariprasad, J.
The disputes in these cases are about administration of a parish Church. Common questions of law and fact arise in these cases. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. It will be proper to dispose of the cases by this common judgment.
2. F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kattappana on I.A.No.829 of 2014 in O.S.No.177 of 2013. Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 (respondents 1 to 4 and 6 in I.A.) are the appellants. Issues vexed in the suit are relating to the administration of a church and, therefore, it is instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, "CPC"). Above mentioned application before the court below is one under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. In the application, respondents/plaintiffs raised the following contentions: According to the respondents, the Church is known as St.George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, whereas the F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 2 appellants would contend that the Church is known as St.George Orthodox Syrian Church. The actual name of the Church is also a point of controversy. According to the respondents, the Church was established by the faithful of the locality with their own money and efforts in the year 1977. It is said to be a public religious trust. The property was obtained in the name of Metropolitan of Kandanad Diocese of the Jacobite Church. The said Church is under the spiritual headship of the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. It is believed that the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East seated on the Apostolic Throne of St.Peter at Antioch in Syria. Although the property was obtained in the name of the said Bishop, it stood vested with a trust. Respondents 3 to 5 are the Parishioners of the 1st plaintiff Church and the 2nd respondent is the Vicar of the Church duly appointed by the Metropolitan of Idukki Diocese, within which the Church falls. 1st appellant claims to be the Vicar of the Church. Plaint schedule property admeasuring an extent of two acres was obtained by assignment in the year 1977 in favour of Jacobite Syrian Christians of the locality under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act. It was intended for constructing a Church for religious worship. The property was assigned in the name of His Beatitude Baselios Paulose-II, the then Catholicos of Patriarch Section in the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. 5th respondent is the present Catholicos who succeeded the above said Catholicos. After F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 3 the demise of Baselios Paulose-II, his assistant, the 6th appellant happened to exercise the spiritual powers because he was owing allegiance to the Patriarch faction of Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. The object of foundation of the Church was to continue it as a Parish Church accepting the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of Patriarch of Antioch. Admittedly, there are long standing dissensions in the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Community. Lot of litigations have been fought between the spiritual followers of the Patriarch of Antioch, commonly known as the Patriarch faction, and the Catholicos of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, popularly known as the Orthodox faction. The disputes prevailed upto 1958 were settled by an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court and thereafter peace among the members in the Community lasted till 01.01.1971. Again disputes erupted in various Churches. Certain suits tried by this Court were taken to the Supreme Court. Finally the Apex Court decided them as per judgment in P.M.A.Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (AIR 1995 SC 2001). Thereafter, the Supreme Court appointed Justice Malimath as an observer and directed to hold election to the Malankara Association. Finally, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter in the year 2002. However, the Jacobite faction boycotted the election process and formed another constitution in the year 2002. In spite of the fact that the Supreme Court finally decided the matter, ripples of factional F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 4 feud could be perceived in various Churches. The respondents contended that the 6th respondent in the application (5th appellant in the FAO) started showing inclination towards the Orthodox faction in the Church, challenging the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of the Patriarch of Antioch. At this juncture, the Patriarch sent a Kalpana on 12.04.1999 to the 5th appellant conveying the decision of the Episcopal Synod restraining him from performing duties of Metropolitan of Kandanad Diocese. Later by a Kalpana dated 25.11.2000, the 5th appellant was removed from exercising right over the Church. Thereafter the 5th appellant started to function against the object and faith of the Church. Appellants 1 to 4 are the supporters of 5th appellant. They have no right to meddle with the administration of the Church in accordance with the 2002 constitution of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church. It is also an admitted fact that the Church, which was originally in existence in the property, was demolished by the appellants' faction and they tried to construct a new one in its place. This was resisted by the contesting respondents. In connection with those disputes, breach of peace occurred in the locality and proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.") was initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. The orders passed therein have been challenged in writ petition before this Court. Writ appeal was also filed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 5 this Court. In this backdrop the contesting respondents claimed a temporary injunction restraining the appellants and their men from constructing a Church building in the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit.
3. Appellants filed a counter statement opposing the maintainability of the petition. According to them, the Church in dispute comes under the Kandanad East Diocese of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to be administered under the 1934 constitution. According to the appellants, a handful of Parishioners, including the contesting respondents, deviated from the Malankara Orthodox Syrian faith and began to create problems in the Church. They themselves disassociated from the Malankara Orthodox Church and joined in a new Sabha called Jacobite Syrian Christian Association in 2002. They have no right or authority over the plaintiff Church and its assets. Various binding precedents would clearly establish the rights of the appellants to administer the Church in accordance with 1934 constitution. Since the Church building was very old and in a dilapidated condition, at the request of the Parishioners, the Diocesan Metropolitan laid stone for construction of a new Church on 25.06.2006. The Sub Divisional Magistrate issued stop memo and took possession of the Church and its properties. Hence the appellants approached this Court against the order passed by the Sub Divisional F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 6 Magistrate. This Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Church is a constituent Church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the then Vicar, Fr. K.K.Varghese, was entitled to keep the keys of the Church. The Church building fell down due to its old age and the appellants removed remnants of the Church. When a new Church was proposed to be built in the property, false litigations were filed by the respondents. Before filing the present one, so many other cases were filed and all of them were disposed against the respondents. All the disputes in the Malankara Churches have been settled by the Apex Court in P.M.A.Metropolitan's case (supra). The contesting respondents have no right to contend that the Church is not a public trust to be administered under 1934 constitution. The suit and the application for injunction are not maintainable.
4. Contentions raised in the writ appeal are as follows: 1st defendant in the suit (1st respondent) is the 1st petitioner in the writ petition. Another priest is the 2nd petitioner. Prayers in the writ petition read as follows:
"(i) call for the records leading to Exhibit.P8 order and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari or other writ order or direction;
(ii) issue of a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take Exhibit.P10 representation and pass orders taking F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 7 into consideration the findings in Exhibits.P1, P2 and P4 judgments of this Hon'ble court and Exhibit.P3 order of District Court, Ernakulam and Ext.P9 judgment of Sub Court, Kattappana after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction as may be necessary in the interest of justice."
Faction to which the plaintiffs in the suit owe allegiance are the respondents in the writ petition, along with official respondents. The dispute in the writ petition is in respect of refusal of permission by the District Collector for constructing a new Church. By Ext.P8 in the writ petition, the District Collector rejected permission sought by the petitioners to reconstruct the Church in the property. The petitioners sought review of Ext.P8 order and also permission to reconstruct the Church as per Ext.P10. This Court, after considering the issues, disposed of the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P8 order. A direction was issued to the District Collector to grant permission to the petitioners to construct a Church subject to the decision by a competent civil court regarding title, interest, possession, management, etc. of the immovable property. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, the faction represented by the plaintiffs in the suit have come up in writ appeal.
5. Parties are hereinafter referred to in the rank specified in F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 8 F.A.O.No.45 of 2015.
6. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who are respondents in the writ appeal and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (appellants in the writ appeal).
7. At the outset, for obvious reasons we may express our view that the questions relating to title, interest, possession, etc. in respect of immovable property, wherein the Church is situated, are extraneous to considerations in O.S.No.177 of 2013 pending before the Sub Court, Kattappana. Concededly, it is a suit under Section 92 CPC regarding the administration of a Church. It is important to notice that the property vests with a trust. After the pronouncement by the Supreme Court in P.M.A.Metropolitan's case (supra) and the subsequent decisions thereon, it is well settled that a parish Church is a religious trust. It is therefore clear that the property of the Church vests in the trust. Therefore, none of the rival groups can claim exclusive title or possession over the property. The only dispute is regarding the right of administration of the Church. We, therefore, do not subscribe to the finding of the learned Single Judge in W.A.No.1413 of 2014 that a competent civil court should decide the title, interest and possession of the property involved in the dispute. Actually, the right to administer and manage the Church is the crucial issue.
8. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 9 of the materials before us, we are of the view that the decision in F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 will resolve the issues involved in W.A.No.1413 of 2014 too.
9. Admittedly the Church in dispute was constructed and consecrated in 1977. Binding decisions touching on the subject make it clear that the factional disputes in Malankara Church persisted till 1958 were resolved by the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira (AIR 1959 SC 31). Thereafter peace prevailed till 1970. Again certain disputes erupted and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in P.M.A.Metropolitan's case (supra) the notional date reckoned for the resurfacing of the disputes is 01.01.1971. Ripples of factional fights elsewhere could be perceived in many Churches thereafter. Church in this case, as mentioned above, was established in 1977. In P.M.A.Metropolitan's case (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 142.5 of the judgment had held that the 1934 constitution of the Malankara Church was approved at a validly convened meeting of the Malankara Association, which Association was created by the Patriarch himself under the resolutions of Mulanthuruthy Synod. It was also observed that the Patriarch group cannot question its legality and validity in view of the acts and conduct of the Patriarch and the members of the group subsequent to F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 10 the judgment of the Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos's case (see - paragraph 142.5). In paragraph 142.8, the Supreme Court further observed that so far as the declaration of the Malankara Church being Episcopal in character is concerned, it is Episcopal to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 constitution. Further, it is held that the said constitution governs the affairs of parish Churches. In the light of these aspects, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the respondents cannot be heard to say that the Church is to be administered under some other constitution. Indisputably in 1977, both the rival groups were members of the same Church. Albeit the disputes relating to the spiritual supremacy of the Catholicos and the Patriarch, basic tenets and faith remain the same. The dispute is mainly centered around the right of administration of Churches. After the decision in P.M.A.Metropolitan's case (supra), the Supreme Court passed further judgments thereon and finally in Moran Mar Thoma Mathews v. Most Rev. Thomas Mar D.Metropolitan (2002 (1) KLT 125 (SC)), the Supreme Court appointed Justice V.S.Malimath as an observer for the election and issued directions regarding the conduct of the election to the Malankara Association. Even though the Patriarch faction participated in the election process initially, they withdrew later and boycotted the election. The observer intimated these facts to the Supreme Court and proceeded with F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 11 the election as directed by the Supreme Court. Finally the Supreme Court as per order dated 12.07.2002 in Civil Appeal No.8185 of 2001 declared that the Association elected pursuant to its judgment shall be the Association for all purposes within the meaning of and for the purposes of the 1934 constitution as amended. It is further ordered that satisfaction in respect of the disputes had been recorded. Now the question is whether the respondents (appellants in the writ appeal) can come forward with a contention, after boycotting the election conducted as per the direction of the Supreme Court, that the present Church does not come within the fold of 1934 constitution. Unchallengeable is the proposition that anybody who does not accept a particular faith of a community, can walk out. Article 25 of the Constitution of India confers freedom on a citizen to do so. But the question is whether he can claim any right over a place of worship, once he quits the faith? Is it possible for any one to take away the religious symbols
- whether corporal or incorporal - along with him? Answer to these questions would resolve the disputes.
10. Ext.A1 is the copy of patta in respect of the land. It is issued in the name of Basselios Paulose-II and he is described therein as the Catholicos officiating from the Catholicate Aramana, Muvattupuzha. Two acres of land were assigned as per this document. Basselios Paulose-II demised in 1996. Thereafter, the 6th defendant in the suit (6th appellant) F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 12 started exercising spiritual powers. The respondents would contend that he could do so because he was within the Patriarch faction of the Malankara Church at that point of time. Later, he shifted allegiance to the Orthodox faction. The respondents therefore contended that the 6th appellant lost his power to exercise spiritual authority over the Church since he ceased to be a member of the sect, according to whose beliefs the Church was founded. This appears to be the starting point of the scramble for administration of the Church.
11. Ext.A3 commissioner's report would show that the Church in existence at the time of his visit for local inspection bore a name as claimed by the respondents. Fact that the Church was not in existence on the date of the suit is undisputed. Issue now is regarding the right to reconstruct the Church. It is come out from the materials produced before us that since the demolition of the Church, both the factions have set up their own arrangements for prayer in accordance with their beliefs. In other words, believers belonging to both the sects have their own set up for worship. Learned Subordinate Judge, according to the learned Senior Counsel, failed to consider the fact that there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondents and therefore, committed a grave error in allowing temporary injunction against the appellants. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that after the declaration of law and settlement of disputes by F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 13 the Apex Court, none of the parties to the present suit can raise a contention that the Church is not to be administered under 1934 constitution. In P.M.A.Metropolitan's case the Supreme Court considered the disputes pertaining to 1064 Parish Churches included in the Malankara Church. It is nobody's case that the present Church is also one of the Churches enlisted in P.M.A.Metropolitan's case . However, the fact that this Church also figured in the list prepared by Justice Malimath as observer for the Malankara Association election in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court is unchallenged. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that representatives from this Church were also sent to participate in the Malankara Association election held at the aegis of the observer appointed by the Supreme Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that it is impermissible to contend that the Church is not to be administered under the 1934 constitution. Ext.A11 is the copy of the constitution of Jacobaya Suriyani Sabha. This was framed in the year 2002, ie., after the election to the Malankara Association. At this stage of the matter, we shall not determine the rights of the rival parties conclusively. We may observe that prima facie there is no material produced to hold that the Church in dispute was ever administered under Ext.A11 constitution. Of course, various kalpanas (orders issued by spiritual heads) are produced by the respondents to show that they have a F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 14 right of management. Most of them are self serving documents. The binding effect of the decision in P.M.A.Metropolitan's case cannot be discounted at this juncture merely by relying on the documents now produced on the side of the respondents. We are of the view that prima facie the Church is to be administered under the 1934 constitution The property as mentioned above vests with the trust. If the trust is found to be administrable under a particular set of rules (here the 1934 constitution of Malankara Church), there should be strong evidence to hold that it had gone out of the fold of the said rules. Prima facie we are of the view that administration of the Church falls within 1934 constitution of Malankara Church. The appellants have produced documents to show that the Church was being administered as per the 1934 constitution. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the disputed Church is free to be an independent Church. It is his contention that in P.M.A.Metropolitan's case, the individual Church disputes were not considered. In order to advance this argument, reliance is placed on the decision in Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews-II v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 780). It is true that such a contention is possible. But, in this particular case, it is seen that this Church also participated in the Malankara election conducted under the supervision of the observer appointed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, prima facie, it is too late to contend now that it did not fall within F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 15 the scope of 1934 constitution.
12. Learned counsel on both sides admit that large number of suits were filed in respect of this Church. O.S.No.126 of 2006 was filed before the Sub Court, Kattappana and it was withdrawn after the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.28865 of 2006. Then O.S.No.67 of 2007 was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Idukki. Later it was transferred to the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam and re-numbered as O.S.No.30 of 2008. That suit was dismissed as per Ext.A8 judgment finding that the suit was not maintainable without sanction under Section 92 CPC. It was filed before a court incompetent to grant the sanction under Section 92 CPC. It is also clear that in the meantime, O.S.No.125 of 2010 was filed by the present plaintiffs before the Sub Court, Kattappana under Section 92 CPC. That suit was dismissed finding that no sanction under Section 92 CPC was required. According to us, that observation of the court is prima facie erroneous. However, the plaintiffs in that suit did not challenge that finding. Again another suit, O.S.No.240 of 2012 was filed before the Sub Court, Kattappana without obtaining sanction under Section 92 CPC. That too was dismissed for want of sanction under Section 92 CPC. Thereafter, the present suit is filed. It is clear that the parties were engaged in a long line of litigations without proper direction. Considering the entire facts placed before us, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Subordinate F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 16 Judge that the respondents herein (petitioners before the court below) established a prima facie case is legally unsustainable. It appears that the court below was carried away by the fact that if an order of temporary injunction was not granted, the appellants (defendants) may proceed with the construction of Church resulting in a breach of peace. Although we may agree that it is a pertinent aspect, it may not be legally correct to pass an order of temporary injunction knowing fully well that the petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie case.
13. The question of balance of convenience arises for consideration only on establishment of a prima facie case. As mentioned above, both the parties have made arrangements to conduct prayers in their own way in the absence of a Parish Church at the disputed site. Therefore, balance of convenience cannot be said to be in favour of the respondents. Question of suffering injury by any of the parties also does not arise. Hence, we are of the view that the approach made by the court below is not correct and the grant of temporary injunction against the appellants is not justified as the respondents (petitioners before the court below) failed to establish the essential ingredients for claiming a temporary injunction. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and vacate the order of temporary injunction passed by the court below.
14. Now we shall refer to the controversies in the writ appeal. F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 17 Respondents in F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by two priests belonging to the faction of the appellants (defendants in the suit). Learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions allowed the writ petition in the following terms:
"....... In view of the above, Ext.P8 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the District Collector to grant permission to the petitioner to construct worship place subject to decision by any competent civil court regarding title, interest, possession, management, etc. of the Church situated in the immovable property. Needful shall be done within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
Learned Single Judge considered the distinction between "public order"
and "law and order" on the basis of the decisions reported in Asok Kumar v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1982 SC 1143) and Angoori Devi v. Union of India ((1989) 1 SCC 385). Grievance of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the material documents exhibited in the writ petition. Ext.P1 is a common judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.28865 of 2006 and 32114 of 2006. The judgment was pronounced in a previous round of litigation in respect of the very same Church. After considering the issues elaborately, the learned Single Judge found that the members of Patriarch faction (respondents' faction) will be entitled to offer F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 & W.A.No.1413 of 2014 18 prayers and attend services only if they file a written undertaking before the Vicar that they would not question the 1934 constitution or the authority of the Catholicos to administer the Church in accordance with the provisions of 1934 constitution. Ext.P2 is another judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23347 of 2008 wherein also construction of the Church was in dispute. As per Ext.P2, this Court directed the parties to resolve the dispute regarding rebuilding of the Church taking recourse to civil proceedings through appropriate court. Apprehension of the learned Single Judge that there is every likelihood of having a breach of peace and law and order issue in the area is justifiable. Having found that the respondents in the appeal are not entitled to get a temporary injunction order, we are of the view that the status quo in respect of the Church existed on the date of suit can be maintained by directing the parties to wait for the construction of the Church until the final disposal of the suit. Along with that appropriate directions should be given to the trial court to expedite trial of the case. It is well settled that the purpose of temporary injunction is to preserve status quo of the disputed property as it existed on the date of suit. Hence we are of the view that the matters can be disposed with the following directions.
In the result, F.A.O.No.45 of 2015 is allowed. The temporary injunction order passed against the appellants therein is hereby vacated. F.A.O.No.45 of 2015
& W.A.No.1413 of 2014 19 W.A.No.1413 of 2014 is disposed with a direction that respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition shall consider Ext.P10 representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the result of O.S.No.177 of 2013 of Sub Court, Kattappana. Until then both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it existed on the date of suit. The trial court shall make all efforts to expedite the trial of the suit and dispose it on an early date, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment. No costs.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks