Kerala High Court
St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Orthodox ... vs Anil Kumar Paul on 7 March, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940
CRP.No. 6 of 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 219/2012 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
DATED 07-03-2014
REVISION PETITIONERS/(RESPONDENTS 1 & 5) : -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ST.MARYS JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,
(WRONGLY SHOWN AS ST.MARY'S MARIGIRI CHURCH) AAROOR,
KARIMPANA P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES
V.U.POULOSE & REJI POULOSE.
2 FR.VARGHESE PANICHAYIL, S/O.FR.THOMAS,
THIRUVANIYOOR P.O, PUTHENCRUZ VIA, PIN-682308.
BY ADV.SRI.VPK.PANICKER
RESPONDENTS/(PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 & 6 TO 7) : -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ANIL KUMAR PAUL, S/O.P.S.POULOSE,
PATTIYANIPUZHA HOUSE, KARIMPANA P.O. PIN - 666662.
2. V.S.GEORGE KUTTY, S/O.SCARIA, VADAKKEKARA,
PUTHENPURAYIL, KALLOORKKAD, KAVAKKADU P.O., PIN-686 668.
3. P.C.SCARIA, S/O.CHACKO, PULLYANI, PUTHENPURAYIL,
PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, KARIMPANA PO, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 662.
4. C.V. ELIAS, S/O.VARKEY, CHERAVATHADATHIL,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 669.
5. FR.ELIAS CHERUKATTU, S/O.C.V.JACOB, CHERUKATTU HOUSE,
EZHAKKARANADU PO, PUTHENCRUZ, PIN-682 308.
6. POULOSE PAILY, S/O.POULOSE, TRUSTEE, PATTIYANIPUZHA,
MANNATHOOR P.O., PAMPAKUDA, PIN-686 667.
7. K.U. JOSEPH, S/O.ULAHANNAN, TRUSTEE,
KOTTAMCHIRAYIL, MEENKUNNAM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 672.
8. SOYUZ JACOB, S/o JACOB, OLICKAL HOUSE,
KARIMPANA P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, PIN - 686 662.
9. SAJU VARGHESE, S/o VARGHESE, KORAMGOLITHADATIL HOUSE,
KARIMPANA P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, PIN - 686 662.
CRP.No. 6 of 2015 2
R1, R 3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R1, R 3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
R1, R 3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH
R1, R 3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
R8&9 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO
R8&9 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO THOMAS
R8&9 BY ADV. SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.
R8&9 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JAMES
R8&9 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL R.NATH
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DMR/-
P. SOMARAJAN, J.
---------------------------------------
C.R.P. No. 6 of 2015
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2018
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2014 in O.P.No.219/2012 of the District Court, Ernakulam, granting leave under Section 92 C.P.C., respondents 1 and 5 came up with this revision petition mainly on the reason that earlier a suit was instituted for the same purpose in which leave was not sought by the petitioners, and after suffering an order, the matter was taken up before the Appellate Court and it is now pending consideration.
2. The present suit was filed for the relief of proper accounting of income, expenditure and assets of the church. It is admittedly a Public Religious Trust. There is also no much dispute that the issue pertaining to the accounting of the assets, income and expenditure of the public religious trust would come under the purview of Section 92 C.P.C. The only objection raised by the parties/respondents 1 and 5 is with respect to the hit of institution of earlier suit and the application of Doctrine of Res Judicata. It was also inter alia C.R.P. No. 6 of 2015 2 contended that the very same prayers were incorporated in the earlier suit which was dismissed holding that no leave under Section 92 C.P.C. was sought. It is also submitted that the property and the assets of the church were taken over under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the concerned RDO and now the RDO is the custodian of the assets of the church and he was not made as a party to the suit. The non impleadment of proper party to the suit is a question yet to be agitated in the suit and it cannot be mixed up at the time of granting of leave under Section 92 C.P.C. Further, the possession taken over by the RDO under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is only a temporary one to safeguard and maintain the law and order situation. So, the question of impleadment of RDO concerned can be agitated in the suit itself at proper time. The granting of leave to institute a suit, especially to a public religious trust for accounting would come under the purview of Section 92 C.P.C. and hence the order passed by the lower court does not call for any interference by this Court.
C.R.P. No. 6 of 2015 3
The revision fails, deserves only dismissal and I do so. No order as to costs. The respective parties are at liberty to take up their contentions available to the suit, including the question of res judicata, non impleadment of necessary parties etc. Sd/-
P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE DMR/-