IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17902 of 2010(O)
1. WILSON LASER, HOUSE NO.X/130,AVIKKUZHY
... Petitioner
2. JOSE S.WILSON, HOUSE NO.X/130,
3. K.SANTHI,RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.XXXI/111
Vs
1. MARY MATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,
... Respondent
2. R.MURUGAN,CHAIRMAN, MARY MATHA EDUCATION
3. M.CELINE, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.X/130,
4. S.SHEEJA,RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.X/130,
5. A.P.AJITH, MEENACHIRA ROADARIKATHU
6. W. YESUDASAN, RESIDING AT HOUSE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :09/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.17902 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.485 of 2009 of the court of
learned Munsiff,Neyyattinkara and appellants in C.M.A.No.6 of 2010 of the court
of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara. That was a suit filed by respondent Nos.1
and 2 seeking decree for prohibitory injunction against petitioners and
respondent Nos.3 to 6 trespassing into the suit property claiming that they have
no right or interest with respondent No.1, a society of which respondent No.2
claimed to be the chairman. In the course of that suit petitioners had been to
this Court with W.P.(C) No.7334 of 2009 and this Court as per judgment dated
23.03.2009 directed convening of governing body meeting of respondent No.1
in the presence of Advocate Commissioner and accordingly the meeting was
convened. Along with the suit respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.3141 of 2009
seeking an order of temporary injunction as prayed for in the plaint against
petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 6. That application was allowed by the
learned Munsiff and accordingly there is an order restraining petitioners and
respondent Nos.3 to 6 from trespassing into the suit property or interfering with
affairs of respondent No.1, society. That order is under challenge in the
appellate court at the instance of petitioners in C.M.A.No.6 of 2010 which is
pending consideration of that court. Prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue an
order allowing petitioners to attend the governing body meeting and participate
WP(C) No.17902/2010
2
in the management and other functions of the society (respondent No.1) till the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of by learned Sub Judge. Learned
Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners contended that in view of the previous
orders passed by this Court petitioners are entitled to take part in the governing
body meeting scheduled to be held immediately. Learned Senior Advocate has
referred me to the prayer made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.801 of
2008 that petitioners may be restrained and prohibited from entering the suit
property “except during the officials hours” which the learned Senior Advocate
say, indicated that even according to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, petitioners are
entitled to enter premises of respondent No.1 during official hours and attend
the meeting of the governing body.
2. It is seen from Ext.P2, order on I.A.No.3141 of 2009 that the
learned Munsiff has entered a finding that petitioners ceased to have any interest
in respondent No.1 (the society) since 05.06.2008 and that respondent No.2
was elected Chairman of respondent No.1. It is on that finding that learned
Munsiff found that petitioners have no business with respondent No.1 and are
not entitled to enter its premises. True that petitioners have their contention that
finding entered by learned Munsiff is not correct. But correctness of that finding
and order are to be agitated in C.M.A.No.6 of 2010. It is not proper for this
Court, in the above circumstances to go into the disputed questions and grant
WP(C) No.17902/2010
3
reliefs prayed for. It is open to the petitioners either to seek early disposal of
C.M.A.No.6 of 2010 or seek appropriate relief by way of interim orders and as
circumstances may warrant, in C.M.A.No.6 of 2010.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the
right of petitioners to seek early disposal of C.M.A.No.6 of 2010 or to seek other
appropriate reliefs in the said appeal if petitioners are otherwise entitled to that.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks