Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.P.Sleebachan vs St.Mary'S Jacobite Syrian Church

Author: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai

Bench: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai

       

  

  

 
 
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT:

               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

   SATURDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

                                 OP(C).No. 2322 of 2011 (O)
                                    --------------------------
     I.A.NO.346/2011 IN OS.NO.50/2010 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PEERMADE
                                                .......

    PETITIONERS:
    ----------------------

    1. K.P.SLEEBACHAN,AGED 52 YEARS,
        S/O.POULOSE, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PASUPPARA P.O.,
        KAPPIPATHAL KARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK.

    2. N.K.POULOSE,
        AGED 68 YEARS, NELIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PASUPPARA PO,
        KAPPIPATHAL KARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK.

    BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN
                   SRI.SUNIL JACOB

    RESPONDENT(S):
    -----------------------------

    1. ST.MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH,
        CHEENTHALAR, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE M.V.SHAJI,
        AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, MOOZHIKKULATHU HOUSE,
        CHEENTHALAR KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE,
        PEERMADE TALUK-685 501.

    2. MR.C.M.THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS,
        S/O.MATHEWKUTTY, CHERUKARA PUTHENPURA HOUSE,
        CHEENTHALAR, AMBALAPPARA KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE,
        PEERMADE TALUK-685 501.

    3. MR.M.PHILIPOSE, AGED 45 YEARS,
        S/O.MATHAI, MANGALATHU HOUSE, CHEENTHALAR,
        AMBALAPPARA KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE,
        PEERMADE TALUK-685 501.

         R1               BY ADVS. SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS
                                    SRI.P.JIMMY JOHN
                                    SRI.LITTO VARGHESE PALATHINKAL
         R2-3             BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THOMAS

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
     ON 01-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
     DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

OP(C) NO.2322/2011 O




                               APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:


P1:   COPY OF I.A.NO.346/2011 IN O.S.NO.50/2010 ON THE FILE OF
      MUNSIFF'S COURT, PEERMADE.


P2:   COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.50/2010.


P3:   COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS TO EXT.P1.


P4:   COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/06/2011 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S
      COURT, PEERMADE IN EXT.P1 APPLICATION.




RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:                N I L




                                                         /TRUE COPY/




                                                         P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss



                    A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J
                   ---------------------------------------------
                        O.P.(C) No.2322 of 2011
                  ---------------------------------------------
               Dated this the Ist day of December, 2012

                                JUDGMENT

Ext.P4 order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Peermade on I.A.No.346/2011 in O.S.No.50 of 2010 is under challenge in this petition.

2. Ext.P2 suit was instituted by the first respondent arraying respondents 2 and 3 as defendants. It was for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from causing any sort of obstruction to the peaceful functioning of the plaintiff church and from doing any act in violation of the constitution of the church. The petitioner would allege that Ext.P2 is a collusive suit between the first respondent/ plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 who are the defendants. On this ground, the petitioners filed Ext.P1 application to get themselves impleaded in the suit alleging that the decree which is likely to be passed will affect them also as the parishioners of the plaintiff church. The said application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by the impugned order.

3. I have perused the impugned order.

O.P.(C)No.2322 of 2011 2

4. The reasoning given by the learned Munsiff while dismissing the application is that the petitioners will not get aggrieved by the result of the suit as that will only facilitate the proper functioning of the church. But, I am of the firm view that it was only just and proper for the court below to afford the petitioners an opportunity to ventilate their grievance by getting themselves impleaded as defendants. As genuine reasons are made out by the petitioners calling for an interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I allow this petition.

5. In the result, I.A.No.346 of 2011 in O.S.No.50 of 2010 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Peermade shall stand allowed. The trial court shall carry out the impleadment.

6. After completing the exercise, the trial court shall give an early verdict preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before court.

The parties shall mark appearance before the trial court on 15th January 2013.



                             sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
                                           JUDGE

css/                   true copy

                                            P.S.TO JUDGE