IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10381 of 2009(O)
1. K.R.SADANANDAN,S/O.LATE RAMANATHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEMAL GANAPATHY DEVASTHANAM,
... Respondent
2. P.P.ANANDA RAO,S/O.P.B.PINBABU,
3. M.J.BALACHANDRAN,S/O.LATE JANARDHANAN,
4. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,
5. K.R.LAKSHMANAN,S/O.LATE RAMANADHAN,
6. V.D.RAJAN,S/O.LATE DESHARADHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :02/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.10381 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P11
order.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that
O.S.No.26/2004 pending before the II Additional
District Court, Ernakulam filed by respondents 1 to 3
herein is not maintainable in law, since respondents 1
to 3 did not issue any notice to the 4th respondent as
provided under Section 124 of the Travancore-Cochin
Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th
respondent herein to take active and effective steps as
submitted and undertaken before the Division Bench of
this Honourable Court at the time of Exts.P4 and P5
judgments disposing Ext.P2 Original Petition and the
Review Petition.”
W.P.(C).No.10381 of 2009 – O
2
2. Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.26/2004
on the file of the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam. Suit
was one filed under Section 92 CPC. Petitioner moved an
application I.A.No.1906/2005 challenging the maintainability of
the suit on two grounds that the suit filed under Section 92 CPC
would lie only before the Sub Court, and that no statutory notice
had been issued to the Devaswom Board, one of the defendants
in the suit, as mandated under Section 124 of the Travancore
Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950. Learned District
Judge after examining the merit of the objections raised found
them unsustainable under law and the application moved by the
petitioner was dismissed. Correctness of that order is impeached
by filing this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is
confining to the challenge against maintainability of the suit only
on the ground of want of statutory notice to the Devaswom Board
which according to the counsel, is fatal to the entertainability of
the suit.
W.P.(C).No.10381 of 2009 – O
3
5. Having regard to the submissions made and taking
note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to
the order impugned, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P11, I
find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned
District Judge holding that objections raised by the petitioner to
challenge the maintainability of the suit are devoid of any merit.
Suit was filed after obtaining leave of the court under Section 92
CPC and that remains unchallenged. Devaswom Board has been
impleaded as a proforma party and no relief is claimed against
them. The scheme prepared over the temple under the
Provisions of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act,
1950 mandated its approval by the Devasom Board. For that
reason alone it was made a party to the suit. No relief is claimed
against Devaswom Board. Further more, Devaswom Board which
is impleaded as defendant in the suit has no objection on the
ground it has not received any notice.
The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-