Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Appellant/Petitioner/ on 8 February, 2018
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939
CRP.No. 122 of 2018
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.5
FR. THOMAS NEDIYAPALACKAL
S/O.PAULOSE, NEDIYAPALACKAL HOUSE, VAZHANI P.O.,
VIRIPPAKKA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SMT.P.DEEPTHI
SRI.SABU JOHN
SRI.PETER K.ALIAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS
1. C.C. JOSEPH
S/O CHAKKAPPAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU,CHELAKKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 586.
2. JOHNY S/O. PAULOSE,
VAKADDAN HOUSE, VENGANELLOOR P.O.,
CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR - PIN- 680 586.
3. VARGHESE S/O. MANI
PALAPPILLIL HOUSE, KILIMANGALAM P.O., CHELAKKARA,
THRISSUR
4. GEORGE
S/O. KUNJAPPAN, CHUNKATH HOUSE, CHELAKKARA P.O., 680586.
5. JOY S/O. CHUMMAR
KOOTHOOR HOUSE, VEGANELLOOR P.O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR
6. FR.ISSAC S/O. PAULOSE,
ST.GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, CHELAKKARA P.O.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP.No. 122 of 2018
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
A1 : COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED TO THE CHELAKKARA YACOBAYA SURIYANI PALLY
BY THE SETTLEMENT PESHKAR OF THE KOCHI STATE
A2 : COPY OF THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER PERTINENT TO SURVEY NO.24
OF CHELAKKARA VILLAGE
A3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN OS NO.12/2002 UPON ANSWERING
INTERROGATORIES WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER CHURCH IN IA NO.3826/2015
DATED 08.02.2018
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: N I L
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.No.122 of 2018
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2018
ORDER
The revision petition is against the order passed on I.A.No.77 of 2018 in O.S.No.29 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Ernakulam. Revision petitioner is the 5th defendant in the suit. Plaintiffs and other defendants are the respondents. The revision petitioner preferred an application before the lower court under Order VII Rule 14(2) CPC requesting to hear maintainability of the suit and reject the claim for non-compliance of the above mentioned provision.
2. The court below, after considering the contentions raised, dismissed the application and hence, the revision petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents.
4. It is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner placed reliance on Order VII Rule 14(2) CPC and Section 17(b)
(e) and Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act to raise a CRP No.122/2018 2 contention that the 1934 Malankara Church Constitution should not be accepted as it is defective for non-registration under the provisions of the Registration Act. At the outset, I have to reject the contention for the reason that the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the said Constitution and this contention will not lie in the mouth of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the suit is not valued at all and therefore, any suit instituted without showing a valuation should be rejected and should not have been numbered. This contention may hold good and therefore it shall be examined by the court below when a challenge is raised before the court.
The impugned order is perfectly maintainable and the contention raised under Order VII Rule 14(2) CPC was rightly rejected by the court below and it shall not be taken as a reason for rejecting the suit. With these observations, I dismiss the revision petition as I find no merit in it.
SD/-
A. HARIPRASAD
JV JUDGE