High Court Kerala High Court

G.Vijayananthakurup vs Ochira Parabrahma Temple on 18 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
G.Vijayananthakurup vs Ochira Parabrahma Temple on 18 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2049 of 2007(R)


1. G.VIJAYANANTHAKURUP, THOTTATHIL VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DAMODHARAN UNNITHAN, MALAYIN KANDATHINAL

                        Vs



1. OCHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.BARGHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,

3. ARAMBIL SUKUMARAN UNNITHAN, AGED 65,

4. O.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 60,

5. V.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 51,

6. R.BHASKARA KURUP, AGED 76,

7. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 70 YEARS,

8. V.SADASIVAN, AGED 57,

9. S.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 72,

10. DR.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN PILLAI,

11. OCHIRA PARABRAHMA SPECIALILTY HOSPITAL,

12. M.R.RAJENDRAN, NADASSERIL HOUSE,

13. S.JAYAPRAKASH, KALARIKKAL,

14. C.HARISANKAR, PADANILATHU,

15. PUSHPADASAN, CHAITHANYA,

16. SHOK KUMAR, CHATHAYAM,

17. BIMAL DANI, MALAKKADATHU HOUSE,

18. S.SASIDHARAN PILLAI,

19. V.VIJAYANPILLAI, KANICHERIL HOUSE,

20. M.C.SURESH, LEKSHMI, THOPPIL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :18/01/2007

 O R D E R
                          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

                       --------------------------

                          W.P.(C)NO.2049 OF 2007

                        -------------------------

             DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007


                                      JUDGMENT

Petitioners are defendants 12 and 13 in O.S.1/06 on the file of

first Additional District Court, Kollam. This petition is filed under

Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P6 order.

According to petitioners, though Ext.P3 application was filed to remove

second defendant/second respondent and other office bearers from

their posts and to make an interim arrangement for administration and

taking income of the temple, learned Additional District Judge did not

dispose the application and instead passed Ext.P6 order.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that

learned District Judge may be directed to pass orders in Ext.P3

application, considering the contentions raised by petitioners.

On hearing learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and

perusing Ext.P6 order it is clear that learned District Judge did not pass

any order in Ext.P3 application after considering the merit of the

contentions raised by petitioners . Learned District Judge is therefore

directed to pass appropriate order in Ext.P3 application as

W.P.(c)2049/07 2

expeditiously as possible and in any event within one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd