Kerala High Court
V.M. Sasi vs The Paramekkavu Devaswom on 4 July, 2017
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2017/2ND SRAVANA, 1939
OP(C).No. 2239 of 2017 (O)
---------------------------
IA NOS.10516/2017, 11227/2017 AND 11228/2017 IN OS NO.3073/2017 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
V.M. SASI
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O MANI,
VICE PRESIDENT, PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM, THRISSUR
RESIDING AT VELUTHEDATH HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR- 680 005
BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY
SRI.A.JOSEPH GEORGE
SRI.EBIN MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM
GEETHANJALI, P.D BUILDING, ROUND EAST,
THRISSUR- 680 001
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY
2. K.SATHEESH MENON
PRESIDENT, AGED ABOUT 51
S/O BALAKRISHNA MENON, PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM,
GEETHANJALI, P.D. BUILDING, ROUND EAST,
THRISSUR- 680 001
3. G.RAJESH
AGED ABOUT 55, S/O V.G.PODUVAL,
SECRETARY, GEETHANJALI, P.D. BUILDING,
ROUND EAST, THRISSUR- 680 001
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 2239 of 2017 (O)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBITP1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.3073/2017, MUNSIFF COURT,
THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION (WITHOUT THE
AFFIDAVIT) IN IA NO.10516/2017 IN OS NO.3073, MUNSIFF COURT, THRISUR
DATED 4-7-2017
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF IA NO.11227/2017 IN OS NO.3073/2017 MUNSIFF
COURT, THRISSUR
EXHIBITP4 COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN EXT. P1
APPLICATION, IA NO.10516/2017 IN OS NO.3073/2017, MUNSIFF COURT
THRISSUR
EXHIBITP5 COPY OF IA NO.11228/2017 IN OS NO.3073/2017 MUNSIFF
COURT, THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-07-2017 IN IA
NO.11228/2017 IN OS NO.3073/2017.,MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-07-2017 IN IA
NO.11227/2017 IN OS NO.3073/2017, MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR
EXHIBITP8 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29-06-2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 3-6-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 09-06-2017 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
20-06-2017
EXHIBITP12 COPY OF BYELAWS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEVASWOM
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------
O.P.(C).No.2239 of 2017
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.3073 of 2017 before the Court of Munsiff, Thrissur. Respondents are the defendants. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. Reliefs sought for therein read thus:
Hence it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant:
A) A decree declaring that the show cause notice dated 3.6.2017 and the order of prohibition 20.6.2017 issued by the 2nd defendant is illegal, invalid and null and void abinitio B) A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants from enforcing or implementing the decision dated 20.6.2017 communicated by the President and /or preventing the plaintiff from functioning as a Vice President of the Paramekkavu Devaswom in any forum of the Devaswom or serving the Devaswom O.P.(C).No.2239 /2017 2 elsewhere, in any manner whatsoever.
C) A decree allowing the plaintiff to realize the costs of the above suit from the defendants and their assets.
D) Such other reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.
3. Ext.P2 is the injunction application filed as I.A.No.10516 of 2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when the matter was moved on 21.7.2017, submitted that the notice challenged in the suit is unsustainable in law and it cannot restrict the rights of the petitioner functioning as Vice-President of the 1st respondent Devaswom. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents then contended that the case was posted to 22.7.2017 for orders. Now the learned counsel on both sides submitted that orders on an application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC has been passed and the injunction application has been adjourned to 14.9.2017. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that a counter statement has been filed in the injunction application and both sides have been heard. Despite that, it was adjourned. The petitioner would contend O.P.(C).No.2239 /2017 3 that urgent orders are required; otherwise he will be put to great prejudice on account of keeping him away from the affairs of Devaswom. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P5 application for directing the defendants to produce documents is also pending. Both applications have to be disposed on an early date.
Considering the facts and circumstances, I hereby direct the court below to hear and dispose of Exts.P2 and P5 applications on merit, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A. HARIPRASAD
JV JUDGE