K.S. Varghese, V.M. George and C.K. Thampi vs St. Peter''s and St. Paul''s Syrian and Others

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Read common order dated 23.5.2011 which is the following effect:

These matters essentially arise from a suit pending before the court below. The interlocutory orders which are challenged apparently do not survive since it is submitted that election has been conducted. The veracity or sustainability of that election is not a matter for decision herein. Subject to the suit being tried and disposed of in accordance with law, as at presently advised, we do not find any reason to further retain these matters here. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellants/writ Petitioners, list tomorrow as last chance.

St. Peter''s and St. Paul''s Syrian Orthodox Church, Kolencherry and its administration is the subject matter of the suit from which the captioned matters arise. It is pointed out that different issues touching the constitution, which will govern the administration and other attendant matters, are in dispute. The court below has dismissed an application by the Plaintiffs for appointment of a receiver. That is under challenge in F.A.O. No. 393 of 2010. Another application was filed by the Plaintiffs for injunction from conducting an election. That was also dismissed. It appears that the order issued in F.A.O. No. 393 of 2010 is a composite one, also containing an order on an application filed by the Defendants. O.P.(C).1134 of 2010 is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution and seeking to quash certain decisions of the court below and also for an interim relief to direct the second Defendant to surrender the keys of the church to the court below pursuant to the order that is challenged in that original petition.

Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs who are the Appellants in the FA Os and who have filed the original petition and also the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Defendants, we are of the view that the fundamental issues between the parties in the litigation which are to be resolved, cannot be answered in an interlocutory proceeding. For one thing, any observation in that regard will impede a proper trial. It may even tend to impinge on the rival contentions and rights of parties that would be put to trial. Also is the fact that such issues cannot be decided without a comprehensive marshalling of the oral and documentary evidence that may be brought on record by the parties concerned. Obviously, the effect, if any, of any earlier judgment issued by courts of competent jurisdiction, including this Court, may also have to be considered in accordance with law. It is also too premature for us to express either way, including as regards that, though the learned Counsel for the contesting Defendants states that in an earlier round, there is a concluded verdict rendered by this Court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that this Court had essentially left all issues open for the trial court to decide upon. We do not express anything in that regard.

With the aforesaid, we are clear in our mind that the court below has now to proceed with the final trial of the suit and being a special court designated for trial of church cases, it would be able to find time to dispose of this litigation, namely, O.S. No. 43 of 2007 pending before it in a time bound manner. This has to be untrammeled by anything stated in any of the orders which are challenged before us in the captioned matters, including as regards the effect and binding nature of any constitution which would govern the parties. It is clarified that no observations in any of those orders or in this judgment shall be treated as conclusive during the adjudication of the suit.

Subject to the aforesaid, the FA Os and the Original Petition are dismissed directing the court below to proceed with the suit in terms of the aforesaid directions and conclude the trial at the earliest, at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We clarify that if either side needs any interim order regarding the preservation of the buildings or for any matter touching the ceremonies etc., they may move the court below, however that, the court below will ensure that pendency of any such application does not further prolong this litigation.

Office will communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below.