The High Court held that the trial court must decide on the request for police assistance and prioritized disposal of the underlying temple management suit.
The writ petition is closed. The Learned Munsiff is directed to give the suit top priority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931
WP(C).No. 4356 of 2009(R)
------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1186/2008 IN OS.1109/2002 of PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER(S): -----------------------
SATHEESH, AGED 37 YEARS,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALPANA, THEKKUM MURI,CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
BY ADVS. MR.B.PRAMOD, MR.GEORGE MATHEWS.
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. PUTHUVARANADU DEVASWOM PRIVATE TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RAMAN KARUNAKARAN KAMBAKKARAN, MOHANALAYAM,AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
2. RAJENDRAN KAMBAKKARAN, AMBALAMADATHIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
3. BHUVANENDRAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN KAMBAKKARAN,KANDATHILPARAMBIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
4. MADUSOODANAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, PARAVATHY NILAYAM AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
5. DEVANAND,S/O.RAJENDRAN KAMBAKKARAN, AMBALAMADATHIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. Kss
..2/-
...2.....
WPC.NO.4356/2009 R
6. MADANAGOPAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, PARVATHY NILAYAM AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
7. RAJEEVAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN KAMBAKKARAN, KANDATHILPARAMBIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
8. SREEKUMAR, S/O.PRABHAKARAN KAMBAKKARAN, KANDATHILPARAMBIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
9. SREEJITH, S/O.PRABHAKARAN KAMBAKKARAN, KANDATHILPARAMBIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
10. SYAMAPRASAD, S/O.PARAMESWARAN KAMBAKKARAN, PARVATHY NILAYAM AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
11. BINURAJ, S/O.RAJENDRAN KAMBAKKARAN, AMBALAMADATHIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
R1 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
R2 BY ADV.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE R4,R6&R10 BY ADV.MR.M.M.ANTO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.4356 of 2009 - R
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1109/2002 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Suit, it is stated, is one for constitution of a managing committee in accordance with a scheme which has already been settled and also for injunction. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The subject matter of the suit is the administration of a temple and the disputes relate to the management of the temple. The petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for appointment of a commissioner to open the hundies and collect the offerings. An advocate commissioner was appointed by the court and, after visiting the temple, he filed a report submitting that there was some obstruction by some of the defendants preventing him from opening all the hundies. The commissioner requested for police protection to implement the order of the court. The grievance canvassed by the petitioner is that without taking further steps on the request made by the
W.P.(C).No.4356 of 2009 - R
2
commissioner for police assistance, the court closed that matter and proceeded with its trial. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
“To pass an order directing the Principal Munsiff court, Cherthala to give necessary police assistance to the advocate commissioner appointed vide the order in I.A.No.1186/2008 in O.S.No.1109/2002 for fully and properly executing the work assigned to him”
taking note of the submissions made by the counsel on both
sides, I find that it is for the court trying the suit which has to consider whether any orders are called for on the request made by the commissioner for police assistance. The suit instituted in the year 2002 which is ripe for trial, it appears, continues to be on the file of the court, in view of the interlocutory proceedings like the appointment of a commissioner and implementation of the work directed to be performed by him. If at all there was any
W.P.(C).No.4356 of 2009 - R
3
obstruction to the commissioner, an officer of the court, in preventing him from executing the order of the court, that is also a matter which is to be taken note of by the court at the appropriate stage. Having regard to the nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit and the disputes arising for adjudication, it would be in the interest of both sides to have an expeditious disposal of the suit which is stated to be ripe for trial. Learned Munsiff is directed to give the suit top priority in hearing and dispose the suit, as expeditiously as possible. I do not want to express or make any observation as to the steps, if any, to be taken by the court on the request made by the advocate commissioner for police assistance.
Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court under Article 226 should direct the Principal Munsiff Court to provide police assistance to the advocate commissioner.
Satheesh
Puthuvanandu Devaswom Private Trust
Rajendran Kambakaran
Bhuvanendran
Madusoodanan
Devanand
S.S.Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
