Fr. George Pattlatt and Fr. Thomas Paul Rampan v. Joshy Abraham and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/6TH ASWINA, 1939** ## **OP(C).No. 2837 of 2017 (O)** ## **--------------------------IA.NO.4639/2017 IN OS.NO.12/2010 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **--------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------------------** **1. FR.GEORGE PATTLATT, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O LATE PAULOSE PALLATT, VICAR ST. MARY'S CHURCH, ODAKKALY, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. FR. THOMAS PAUL RAMPAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O LATE PAULOSE MARACHERIAL,** **ASSISTANT VICAR, ST. MARY'S CHURCH, ODAKKALY, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT** **RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------** **1. JOSHY ABRAHAM, AGED 37, SON OF OUSEPH ABRAHAM,** **MEKKAMALIL HOUSE, VAIKKARA P.O., ASSAMANNOOR HOUSE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 549.** **2. AIBY M. PAUL,** - **AGED 31, SON OF PAULOSE,** - **MONOTHMALIL HOUSE, ASSAMANNOOR P.O, THALAPUNCHA KARA, ASSAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683 549.** **3. FR. VARGHESE, AGED 48, SON OF BABY, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN -683 542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **OP(C).No. 2837 of 2017 (O)** ## **4. BIJU VARGHESE,** **SON OF K.GEEVARGHESE, AGED 38, KANJIRATHUMKUDIYIL HOUSE, ASSAMANNOOR PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542** ## **5. BENNY PAUL,** **SON OF M.M. PAULOSE, AGED 42, MUKULATH HOUSE, ODAKKALI, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.PIN -683 542.** ## **6. BIJU ABRAHAM,** - **SON OF T.P.AVIRA, AGED 37, THEKKUMPURATH HOUSE, METHALA, PERUMBAVOOR. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542** ## **7. K.P. BABY,** - **SON OF VARKEY PAULOSE, AGED 42,** - **KADUMBELIL HOUSE, METHALA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT683 542** ## **8. P.M. CHACKO,** **SON OF AVIRA MATHEW, AGED 55, POMAKKAL HOUSE, PUNNAYAM, ODAKKALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542** ## **9. SMT. SALI VARGHESE,** - **WIFE OF K.P VARGHESE, AGED 37,** - **KANJIRATHUMKUDIYIL, PANICHAYAM, ODAKKALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542** **10. ROY M.V., S/O VARGHESE, MEKKAMALIL HOUSE, METHALA P.O, KURUPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **11. BIJU PAUL, S/O POULOSE, MEKKAMALIL HOUSE, THALAPUCHAKARA, ASSAMANNOR.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 549** **12. REV.FR.THARIAN, KEECHERIL HOUSE, AIMURI P.O, KURUPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM DIST. (DIED)** **13. M.T. VARGHESE, MEKKAMALIL HOUSE, METHALA P.O., KURUPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 549** **14. M.K. ELIAS, MEKKAMALIL HOUSE, ASSAMANNOOR P.O.,** **KURUPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM DIST. (DIED)** **15. P.C. PAULOSE, PERUVUNGAL HOUSE, METHALA P.O., KURUPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 549** **3/-** **-3-** ## **OP(C).No. 2837 of 2017 (O)** **16. REV. FR. A.P. YACOB, ATHIRAMPUZHA HOUSE, KILLIVALIL KOMBANAD P.O.,** **VENGOOR, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 549** **17. POULOSE ULAHANNAN,** **AGED 65, SON OF ULAHANNAN, KANJIRAMTHUMKUDY HOUSE, ASSAMANNOOR P.O., ASSAMANNOOR KARA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 549** **18. BASSELIOUS THOMAS-I CAHTOLICOS AND METROPOLITAN TRUSTEE, JACOBITE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PATRIARCHAL CENTRE, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DIST-682 308** **19. POULOSE MAR PAKKOMIOSE METROPOLITAN, MALANKARA ORTHODOX CHURCH, THRIKKUNATH SEMINARY,** **ALUVA-683 101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **20. ABRAHAM MAR SEVERIOS METROPOLITAN, MALANKARA ORTHODOX CHURCH, AGED 63,** **SON OF A.M.CHACKO, BETHSEDA, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 554** **21. P.G. BABY, AGED 48, SON OF GEEVARGHESE, PARATHUVAYALIL HOUSE, EKKUNNAM, ODAKKALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542** **22. P.I. VALSALAN, AGED 38, SON OF ITTIYARA, PANIYELIL HOUSE, METHALA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542** **23. ELDHOSE M. BABY, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O T.BABY, MENOTHUMALIL, IRINGOLE P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 542** **24. E.G. GEORGE, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O GEEVARGHESE, EDAKKUDY, METHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 549** **25. TOMY JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O OUSEPH, MECKAMALIL THALAPUNCHA, VAIKARA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 542** **26. PAULOSE P.V., AGED 56, S/O VARGHESE, PARATHUVAYALIL HOUSE, ODAKKALI, ASAMANNOOR P.O., PIN -683 549. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **4/-** **-4-** ## **OP(C).No. 2837 of 2017 (O)** ## **27. REJI PAUL,** **AGED 48, S/O PAULOSE, MECKAMALIL HOUSE, METHALA P.O, PIN-683 545, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.PHILIP** **SRI.P.P.KURIEN** **R3 BY SRI.N.SUKUMARAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE** **ADVS. SRI.S.SHYAM** **SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL R7 BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN R23 BY ADVS. SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **OP(C).No. 2837 of 2017 (O)** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **----------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.12 OF 2010 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1,2,10 & 11 IN O.S.NO.12 OF 2010 BEFORE THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.12 OF 2010 BEFORE THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CONCLUSIONS OF THE APEX COURT IN PARA 183 AND 184 OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2017(3) KLT 261(SC).** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN A.S NO.117 OF 1998 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 12.10.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.46 OF 1977 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 6.1.1998.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.665 OF 1998 DATED 12.10.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.4309/2017 IN O.S.NO.12/2010 DATED 21.08.2017 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.4639 OF 2017 IN O.S.NO.12 OF 2010 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO EXHIBIT P9 FILED BY THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.4639 OF 2017 IN O.S.NO.12 OF 2010 DATED 19.09.2017 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R1(A) COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.5035 OF 2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 17TH MARCH 2016.** **EXHIBIT R1(B) COPY OF THE OP NO.46 OF 2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** **2/-** **-2-** ## **OP(C).No. 2837 of 2017 (O)** **EXHIBIT R1(C) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29TH AUGUST, 2016 IN OS.12/2010 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **EXHIBIT R1(D) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3RD JUNE, 2017 IN OS.12/2010 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT R3(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/8/2016 IN IA.NO.6142 OF 2016 IN OS.NO.12 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **EXHIBIT R3(B) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/3/2016 IN WP(C) NO.5035 OF 2016 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA** - **EXHIBIT R3(C) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/6/2017 IN IA.NO.2523 OF 2017 IN OS.NO.12 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT R23(A) COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA 189/2017 IN OS 12/2010 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT R23(B) COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF APPROVAL FILED BY RESPONDENTS 23 IN IA 189/2017 IN OS 12/2010 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT R23(C) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/8/2016 IN IA 6142/2016 IN OS 12/2010** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** ## **------------------------------O.P.(C)No.2837 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 28[th] day of September, 2017. ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are defendants 12 and 13 respectively in O.S.No.12/2010 on the file of the 1[st] Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The said original suit is one filed by respondents 1 to 9 herein seeking a declaration that Odakkaly St.Mary's Church is a parish church of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Association administered by its Constitution adopted in the meeting of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Association held on 6.7.2002 by plaintiffs 1 to 3 and their successors. The plaintiffs have also sought for a declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.40 of 1997 on the file of the 1[st] Additional District Court, Ernakulam, is not binding on the Odakkaly St.Mary's Church, its assets, its institutions and parishioners; and also a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4, 8 to 11, their successors in office, agents and men from interfering with the management, administration and conduct of religious services in the plaint schedule Church by plaintiffs 1 to 3 and their successors in office, in accordance with the Constitution of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Association. OP(C)No.2837/2017 -2- 2. The petitioners herein, who are stated to be the Vicar and Assistant Vicar respectively of St.Mary's Church, Odakkaly, filed I.A.No.4364/2017 (Ext.P9) before the court below seeking an order allowing them and the family members of deceased Eliyamma Varghese, Thekkummattathil House, Ashamannoor, to conduct 30[th] and 40[th] day prayers in connection with her death at the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule Church and in the plaint schedule church on 19.9.2017 and 29.9.2017 respectively between 7.00 am to 10.00 am, in accordance with the religious rites prevailing in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, and also to restrain respondents 1 to 7, 17, 23 to 25 therein from causing any obstruction to the same. The petitioners have also sought for an order directing the Circle Inspector of Police, Kuruppumpady, to render necessary assistance to facilitate the same. 3. The reliefs sought for in I.A.No.4639/2017 were opposed by respondents 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 therein by filing Ext.P10 counter affidavit. 4. After considering the rival contentions, the court below OP(C)No.2837/2017 -3- allowed I.A.No.4639/2017 by Ext.P11 order dated 19.9.2017, by permitting the petitioners and the family members of deceased Eliyamma Varghese to conduct 30[th] and 40[th] day prayers in connection with her death in the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule church, on 19.9.2017 and 29.9.2017 respectively, in between 7.00 am and 10.00 am, in accordance with the religious rites prevailing in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Accordingly, respondents 1 to 7, 17, 23 to 25 are restrained from causing obstruction to the petitioners and the family members of deceased Eliyamma Varghese in conducting prayers in the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule church, and the Circle Inspector of Police, Kuruppumpady, is directed to render necessary aid for the purpose of carrying out the said order. 5. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P11 order of the court below, to the extent the petitioners are not permitted to conduct religious prayers in the plaint schedule church in connection with the 30[th] and 40[th] day prayers of Eliyamma Varghese, they are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory OP(C)No.2837/2017 -4- jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 1[st] respondent, the 3[rd] respondent and also the 23[rd] respondent. The petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit to the said counter affidavits. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and also the respective counsel for other respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the petitioners who are the lawful Vigar and Assistant Vicar of the plaint schedule church appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan Angamaly Diocese of Malankara Church are legally entitled to conduct 30[th] and 40[th] day prayers in connection with the death of Eliyamma Varghese in the plaint schedule church as well, and therefore the court below went wrong in declining the relief sought for in I.A.No.4639/2017. The learned counsel would also contend that, in **Varghese v. St.Peter's and Paul's Syrian** OP(C)No.2837/2017 -5- **Orthodox Church [2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC)]** the Apex Court declared the right of the parishioners in the Malankara Church and its constituent churches including the plaint schedule church, i.e., St.Mary's Church, Odakkaly and that, the contentions raised by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.12/2010, which is pending adjudication before the court below, are contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in the above said decision. The learned counsel would also point out that the Apex Court by the order dated 5.7.2017 in Civil Appeal No.2036/2010 and the order dated 18.7.2017 in Civil Appeal No.8478/2012 disposed of those appeals holding that the decision in **Varghese's case (supra)** is applicable to the parties in those appeals and that, the dispute in those appeals relates to St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Nechoor and St.Johns Orthodox Syrian Church. The learned counsel has also raised various contentions touching the merits of the issue now pending adjudication before the court below in O.S.No.12/2010. 9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1[st] respondent and also the learned counsel for other respondents OP(C)No.2837/2017 -6- would contend that, the question as to whether the contentions raised by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.12/2010 are contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in **Varghese's case (supra)** cannot be raised for adjudication before this Court in an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P11 order, and the said question has to be decided by the court below in that suit. After referring to various orders passed by the court below on similar requests made by the petitioners, the learned counsel would point out that, on all such applications the court below permitted the petitioners herein to conduct prayers in connection with the death of parishioners only in the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule church and not in the plaint schedule church. The learned counsel has also raised various contentions touching the merits of the issue now pending adjudication before the court below in O.S.No.12/2010. 10. I have considered the rival submissions. 11. The present original petition is one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking interference on Ext.P11 OP(C)No.2837/2017 -7- order of the court below to the extent the petitioners are not permitted to conduct religious prayers in the plaint schedule church in connection with the 30[th] and 40[th] day prayers of deceased Eliyamma Varghese. 12. In **Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]** the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 13. In **Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G.Nair [2016(1) KHC 1]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, law is well OP(C)No.2837/2017 -8- settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principle of law. 14. By Ext.P11 order, which is under challenge in this original petition, the petitioners and the family members of deceased Eliyamma Varghese were permitted to conduct 30[th] and 40[th] day prayers in connection with her death in the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule church on 19.9.2017 and 29.9.2017 respectively, in between 7.00 am and 10.00 am, in accordance with the religious rites prevailing in the church. By the said order, the permission sought for conducting prayers OP(C)No.2837/2017 -9- inside the plaint schedule church was not granted. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the 1[st] respondent, a similar prayer for conducting prayers in the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule church and also in the plaint schedule church was sought for by the petitioners herein, by filing I.A.No.4309/2017, in connection with the cremation of the above said Eliyamma Varghese. The said interlocutory application was allowed in part by Ext.P8 order dated 21.8.2017 of the court below, whereby the petitioners and the family members of deceased Eliyamma Varghese were permitted to cremate her dead body and conduct religious ceremonies in the cemetery of the plaint schedule church on 21.8.2017, in between 4.00 pm and 6.00 pm, by availing the services of the petitioners and also to conduct prayers on 3 consecutive dates from the date of internment and the 7[th] day, in between 7.00 am and 9.00 pm from the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule church. 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the 1[st] respondent OP(C)No.2837/2017 -10- would point out that, Ext.P8 order is one passed by the court below subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in **Varghese's case (supra)** . Then, the learned counsel for the petitioners, after referring to paragraph 4 of Ext.P8 order, would submit that it was an order passed recording the fact that the respondents therein have no objection in granting permission for cremation of the dead body of Eliyamma Varghese in the cemetery of the plaint schedule church and for conducting religious ceremonies only in the cemetery. Therefore, the court below had no occasion to deal with the right of the parishioners in the Malankara Church and its constituent churches, as declared by the Apex Court in **Varghese's case (supra)** . 17. This Court, while considering the challenge made against Ext.P11 order, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India need not go into the merits of the rival contentions raised touching the merits of the issue now pending adjudication before the court below in O.S.No.12/2010. It is for both sides to raise all such legal and factual contentions before court below at OP(C)No.2837/2017 -11- appropriate time. Therefore, the question as to whether the contentions raised by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.12/2010 are contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in **Varghese's case (supra)** need not be dealt with by this Court in this original petition. 18. Ext.R1(c) order dated 29.8.2016 of the court below, produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent herein, is one passed in I.A.No.6142/2016, another application filed by the petitioners herein seeking permission to conduct the 5[th] day anniversary religious ceremonies of deceased Annamma Varghese, another parishioner, in the plaint schedule church as well as in the cemetery. The said interlocutory application was allowed by Ext.R1(c) order, whereby the petitioners and the family members of deceased Annamma Varghese were permitted to perform religious ceremonies in connection with 5[th] day anniversary at the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule church on 3.9.2016. In the said order, the court below has referred to the order dated 2.6.2014 of this OP(C)No.2837/2017 -12- Court in I.A.No.1022/2014 in A.S.No.117/1998, whereby permission was granted to conduct religious sacraments and services on the 11[th] and 13[th] death anniversary of another parishioner only at the cemetery and tomb of the plaint schedule church. 19. In Ext.R1(c) order, the court below has also noticed that the plaint schedule church is in the possession of the plaintiffs faction and the vicar appointed by the plaintiffs faction performs religious duties at the plaint schedule church. As discernible from Ext.R3(a) order, it was not disputed before the court below that, the petitioners therein, who are the petitioners in that interlocutory application as well, i.e., I.A.No.6142/2016, are working in another church nearby and that, the Orthodox faction has their own church just 4 to 5 Kms. away from the plaint schedule church. Therefore, the court below found that, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the prayer sought for in I.A.No.6142/2016 is limited to cemetery only, as they can very well conduct the ceremonies to be held at the church, at their OP(C)No.2837/2017 -13- own church. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the finding in Ext.R3(a) order of the court below as to the existence of a church by the Orthodox faction just 4 to 5 Kms. away from the plaint schedule church is factually incorrect, this Court need not deal with such contentions in this original petition, since Ext.R3(a) order is not the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 20. In view of the law laid down by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and also the decision of this Court referred to supra, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the court below in Ext.P11 order. Therefore, no interference is called for, unless this Court finds that the court below has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or its decision is in direct conflict with settled principle of law. 21. Viewed in the light of the law laid in the decisions referred to supra, I find absolutely no grounds to interfere with OP(C)No.2837/2017 -14- Ext.P11 order, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge