IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27831 of 2010(O)
1. RAJAN K.VARGHESE, S/O.KUNJU,
... Petitioner
2. ROJI ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM,
Vs
1. K.A.GEORGE, S/O.ITTAN,
... Respondent
2. K.V.KURIAKOSE, S/O.VARGHESE,
3. DR.JACOB JOHN, S/O.CHACKO YOHANNAN,
4. ST.PETERS & ST.PAULS (JACOBITE)
5. VERY REV.FR.C.K.JOHN COREPISCOPA,
6. K.V.KURIACHAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
7. M.K.PAUL, AGED 50 YEARS,
8. FR.VARGHESE KALAPPURACKAL
9. K.V.PAULOSE, KEENELIL HOUSE,
10. K.V.THOMAS, KADAMMANATTU HOUSE,
11. K.V.MATHEW AKAMPILLIL,
12. THOMAS K.GEORGE, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE,
13. K.M.JAMES, MALAYAKARUVELIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
For Respondent :SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :08/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
W.P(C) No.27831 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 08th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and respondent Nos.7
to 9.
2. Petitioners along with others filed O.S.No.39 of 2005 in
the court of learned Sub Judge, North Paravur for a decree for
prohibitory injunction and other reliefs. That suit was withdrawn
and transferred to the court of learned First Additional District
Judge, Ernakulam and renumbered as O.S.No.28 of 2005.
Respondent Nos.7 to 9-contesting defendants raised a contention
that the suit is not maintainable since leave of the court under
Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not obtained.
Learned Additional District Judge accepted that contention and
dismissed O.S. No.28 of 2005 as per judgment and decree dated
04.09.2010. Grievance of petitioners is that until disposal of the
suit there was an arrangement between the parties in the matter
of conduct of Holy Mass and other religious functions in the Church
involved but that has come to an end by the dismissal of the suit
W.P(C) No.27831 of 2010
-: 2 :-
and there is possibility of dispute between the parties arising in
the conduct of Holy Mass and other religious functions in the
Church. Petitioners have not obtained a copy of judgment and
decree to challenge the same before appropriate court. In the
circumstances petitioners seek direction in the matter of conduct
of Holly Mass and other religious functions in the Church.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9 contended that since
suit has been dismissed remedy of petitioners is to prefer appeal
and seek appropriate relief or seek appropriate relief from the trial
court which dismissed the suit.
3. It is not disputed that suit was dismissed on
04.09.2010. Normally it will take some time for petitioners to get
copy of the judgment and decree and challenge the same in the
appropriate court. But some arrangement has to be made in the
meantime to preserve peace in the Church. Having regard to
the circumstances stated above and considering the views
expressed by counsel on both sides I am inclined to make the
following arrangements in the matter of conducting Holly Mass
and other religious functions in the Church until appropriate
orders are passed by the court considering the appeal against
dismissal of the suit.
W.P(C) No.27831 of 2010
-: 3 :-
Resultantly, Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines:
(i) Both sides are directed not to commit
waste in the suit property.
(ii) Parties are directed to conduct Holly
Mass and other religious functions in the Church on
alternate weeks. Accordingly Holly Mass and other
religious functions if any in the Church will be
conducted by respondent No.5 from 5.00 p.m., on
11.09.2010 till 5.00 p.m., on 18.09.2010. The next
turn will be of contesting respondent Nos.7 to 9
beginning from 5.00 p.m., on 18.09.2010 onwards
and similar turn will follow and be observed by the
parties.
(iii) The above arrangement will continue
until the appellate court passes appropriate orders in
the appeal that may be preferred by the petitioners.
(iv) In case filing of the appeal is delayed or
for any other justifiable reasons it will be open to
respondent Nos.7 to 9 to approach this Court for
cancellation/modification of the above arrangement.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv