Kerala High Court
K.P.John vs Mani Varkey on 26 October, 2010
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 445 of 2010(O)
1. K.P.JOHN, S/O.PYLEE, AGED 54,
... Petitioner
2. MATHEW P.JACOB, S/O.CHACKO PILLAY,
3. V.U.SIMON, S/O.UTHUP,
Vs
1. MANI VARKEY, THOTTUPURATH,
... Respondent
2. VARGHESE ULAHANNAN,
3. ELIAS PAILY, KUTTIVELIL,
4. POULOSE CHACKO, MANJAMATTATHIL,
5. THOMAS YOHANNAN,
6. ABRAHAM JOSEPH,
7. KURIAKOSE ITTAN,
8. PETER IYPE, KAKKANATTIL,
9. FR.SIMON CHELLIKATTIL,
10. REV.FR.M.V.JOSEPH,
11. REV.FR.JOHN THALIACHERAYIL,
12. DEACON.V.A.MATHEW, NOW FR.V.A.MATHEWS,
13. MATHEN JOHN (P.M.JOHN),
14. A.T.SKARIA, S/O.THOMAS,
15. PAULOSE K.CHERIAN,
16. MATHAI, S/O.ULAHANAN,
17. ABRAHAM, S/O.MATHAI,
18. KURIAN, S/O.THOMAS,
19. ELIAS, S/O.VARKEY,
20. JIMMY, S/O.VARKEY,
21. YACOB, S/O.PAILY,
22. KURIAN, S/O.THOMMAN,
23. PAULOSE, S/O.CHANDY,
24. BABU, S/O.PAULOSE,
25. ABRAHAM, S/O.VARKEY,
26. JOHN, S/O.VARKEY,
27. YOHANNAN, S/O.THOMAS,
28. JACOB, S/O.CHERIAN,
29. REV.FR.SACARIYA VATTAKKATTIL,
30. H.G.DR.MATHEWS MAR SAVARIOS,
31. FR.T.P.ELIAS, AYYANATTU HOUSE,
32. HIS HOLINESS MORAN MAR BASELIUS
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :26/10/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
O.P(C) NO.445 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Plaintiff in O.S. No.6 of 1995 of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Ernakulam is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P7, order dated 10.08.2010 dismissing Ext.P5, application (I.A. No.3387 of 2004) for approval of two Kalpanas issued by the Metropolitan of the Diocese concerned. Dispute concerns the St.Marys Orthodox Church and its assets which according to the petitioners is to be administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. They have prayed for a declaration in that line and consequential injunction. According to the petitioners, pursuant to Ext.P8, order passed by this Court election to the Managing Committee of the Church is being conducted. Petitioners filed I.A. No. 1326 of 2002 for an order of temporary injunction against respondents belonging to the opposite faction attempting to induct new Priests into the Church in addition to the existing Priests. On that application Ext.P2, interim order was passed on 12.04.2002 and that order remains in force even now. While so, respondent No.16 who was functioning as co-Priest of O.P(C) No.445 of 2010 -: 2 :- the Church allegedly appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution was allowed to retire and he was removed from the service of the Church as per Ext.P3, Kalpana No.39/2004 dated 02.08.2004 of the Metropolitan concerned. In his place the Metropolitan has appointed another Priest as per Ext.P4, Kalpana No.40/2004 dated 02.08.2004. Petitioners by filing Ext.P5, wanted the court to approve of Exts.P3 and P4, Kalpanas. That application was objected by the contesting respondents. Respondent No.16 himself filed a counter affidavit (Ext.P6) opposing the application. Learned District Judge passed Ext.P7, order observing that it is not necessary to interfere in the matter at this stage which would in effect alter the situation being maintained by the interim order dated 12.04.2002 and particularly as recording of evidence in the case has started. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that it will take much time to complete recording of evidence and for disposal of the case and in the meantime services in the Church require another Priest also for which purpose Kalpana No.40/2004 was issued by the Metropolitan.
2. It is not disputed that Ext.P2, order remains in force even now. Learned District Judge has observed that recording of O.P(C) No.445 of 2010 -: 3 :- evidence in the case has started and at this stage it is not necessary to alter the situation which will only create further problems in the Church. Having regard to that I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P7, order passed by the learned District Judge. But considering the grievance of the petitioner I direct that learned District Judge shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
Original Petition is closed with the above direction.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv