Disposed

K.Rajesh v. K.M. Vasudevan Namboodiri

Kerala HC5 Jun 2012OP(C)/1736/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenged an ex parte interim injunction in a temple property suit. The court directed the learned District Judge to withdraw the lower suit or hear the appeal promptly to allow the petitioners, who had arranged a festival, to avoid irreparable loss.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned District Judge to withdraw the suit or hear the appeal early, as per the case or emergency state.

K.Rajesh Vs K.M. Vasudevan Namboodiri — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/15TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 1736 of 2012 (O)

¶6

OS.157/2012 of SUB COURT, MANJERI

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

K.RAJESH,

¶9

S/O. HARIDASAN, RESIDING AT KONNERI HOUSE VELLAYOOR P.O., THUVUR (VIA), NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

R.P.VASUDEVAN

¶11

RESIDING AT VELLAYOOR P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

P.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶13

S/O. LATE SIVARAMAN NAIR

¶14

RESIDING AT JAYA MANDIRAM HOUSE, VELLAYOOR P.O. NILAMBUR TALUK.

¶15

VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRIPAD RESIDING AT KUTTIYATTU ILLAM, PAROPPADY P.O. KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶17

SRI.P.S.APPU

¶18

SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.K.A.ANAS

¶19

RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

K.M. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI S/O. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI

¶21

RESIDING AT KARKKIDAKATHU MOOTHEDATHU MANA KADANNAMANNA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK PIN-679 324.

¶22

K.M.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI S/O. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI RESIDING AT VELLAYOOR P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK PIN-679 327.

¶23

PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD RESIDING AT PATHAYIKKARA MANA, PATHAYIKKARA P.O. PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PIN:.

¶24

BY ADV. SHRI R.D.SHENOY

¶25

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2564/2009 IN MFA (HR & CE) NO.228/2009 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD.10.1.2011.

¶29

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DEPICTING THE PROGRAMMES OF THE 'PUNA PRATHISHTA' FESTIVAL IN THE TEMPLE DATED NIL.

¶30

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.157/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, MANJERI, DTD.19.5.2012.

¶31

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF IA NO.972/2012 IN OS NO.157/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, MANJERI, DTD.19.5.2012.

¶32

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF INJUNCTION IN IA NO.972/2011 IN OS NO.157/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, MANJERI, DTD.22.5.2012.

¶33

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD.30.5.2012.

¶34

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶37

-------------------------------------O.P.(C). No.1736 of 2012 -------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2012.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

This Original Petition is in challenge of the exparte, interim order of injunction passed by the learned Sub Judge, manjeri in O.S.No.157 of 2012. Respondents 1 and 2 who claimed to be members of the Mana filed that suit. According to them the Vellayoor Mookambika Bhagavathi Temple and its properties belonged to the Mana as held by the learned Sub Judge in O.S.No.99 of 2005 (which is under challenge in this Court in M.F.A.(HR&CE) No.228 of 2009). In the meantime, apprehending that petitioners through the Seva Samithi have arranged to conduct festival in the temple, respondents filed O.S.No.157 of 2012 and obtained the exparte interim order of injunction.

¶40

Petitioners appeared in O.S.No.157 of 2012 and filed counter affidavit opposing the application for injunction. They contended that though in O.S.No.99 of 2005 there is a finding that the temple and its properties belonged to the Mana, it is a private temple and the direction issued by the Commissioner of HR & CE to the Deputy Commissioner to frame a scheme was set aside, this Court in M.F.A.(HR & CE) No.228 of 2009 has stayed operation of that judgment until further orders.

¶41

Grievance of petitioners is that though in O.S.No.157 of 2012 Ext.P5, exparte order of injunction was passed on 22.05.2012, the case was

¶42

¶43

OP(C) No.1736/2012

¶44

posted for hearing on 25.06.2012 and in the meantime, they appeared in the case and filed Ext.P6, counter affidavit. The application for injunction was posted for hearing on 04.06.2012 but as learned Sub Judge was on leave, the matter is likely to be taken up only after 15.06.2012. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that petitioners have already made arrangements through the Seva Samithi to conduct punaprathishta festival in the temple from 20.06.2012 to 25.06.2012 as revealed by Ext.P2, notice. The total estimate for the festival will come to `35 lakhs and at this stage if conduct of the festival is prevented, petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Learned Senior Advocate contends that as seen from Ext.P1, operation of the judgment in O.S.No.99 of 2005 is stayed by this Court in M.F.A.(HR&CE) No.228 of 2009 until further orders.

¶45

Having heard learned Senior Advocate, I am inclined to think that the proper remedy for petitioners is either in case there is no possibility of learned Sub Judge resuming charge and deciding the application before the festival is scheduled to commence, to request the learned District Judge concerned to withdraw the case to his court and hear and dispose of the application for injunction as provided under law or, notwithstanding that petitioners have filed a counter affidavit in answer to I.A.No.972 of 2012, challenge Ext.P5, order in appeal since filing of objection to the application for interim injunction and challenging the exparte, interim order in appeal are concurrent remedies.

¶46

Since the matter, learned Senior Advocate points out, is urgent and

¶47

¶48

OP(C) No.1736/2012

¶49

since as stated in Ext.P2, notice the festival is scheduled to commence on 20.06.2012 and time is running out, learned District Judge is directed to consider either the request for withdrawal of the suit or hear and dispose of the appeal if preferred by the petitioners as the case may be, as early as possible, after hearing both sides.

¶50

With the above direction this Original Petition is disposed of.

¶51

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶52

cks

K.Rajesh v. K.M. Vasudevan Namboodiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajesh v. K.M. Vasudevan Namboodiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xavier @ Kunjappan Vs Xavier

Amina Vs Madhavi @ Thankamani Amma

N.Nagappan Vs Prasanth.M.Nair

M/S.Panchamy Pack (P) Ltd. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Snehalasyan Musliar Vs Lathika

Kunnileri Radha Vs Raghavan Mavilipurathoot