O.P.(C) No.1008 of 2018

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940** ## **PETITIONER(S)/5TH DEFENDANT** **KURIAKOSE MAR SEVERIOS ARCH BISHOP AND CHIEF METROPOLITAN OF KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM POST, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 531.** **BY ADV.SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH** **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4 & 6 TO 8 AND PLAINTIFF & ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS:** **1. MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION AT MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 531, REPRESENTED BY ITS FORMER SECRETARY SRI. ELIAS ZACHARIAH PAAREL.** **2. FR. A.T THOMAS ARAKKAL** **THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION OF MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 531.** **3. THE KANANAYA COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS FORMER SECRETARY SRI. ELIAS ZACHARIAH PARAYIL, THE MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION AT MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 531.** **4. K.K KURUVILLA THE FORMER MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ASSOCIATION OF MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 531.** **5. KURIAKOSE MAR GREGORIOS METROPOLITAN IN CHARGE OF THE KALLISSERY DIVISION OF THE KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, BETH MAHRIN, VALLAMKULAM P.O, THIRUVALLA - 689 541.** **...2** **OP(C).No. 1008 of 2018 (O4) 2** ## **6. KURIAKOSE MAR IVANIOS** **METROPOLITAN IN CHARGE OF THE RANNY DIVISION OF THE KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, ANGADY P.O, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 673.** ## **7. AYOUB MAR SYLVANOS** **ARCH-BISHOP OF THE KNANAYA SYRIAN CHURCHES IN AMERICA, CANADA & EUROPE, MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 531.** ## **8. THOMAS ELIAS** **PAAREL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING IN C-203, CHANDRAKIRAN APARTMENT 42/1, NETHAJI ROAD, FRAZE TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005.** ## **9. K.P PUNNOOSE** **S/O.LATE PUNNOOSE, KNNUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURICHY P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 532.** ## **10. SUNDEEP ABRAHAM** **S/O. K.T ABRAHAM, THAMARAPPALLIL, KALLISSERY P.O, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA - 689 124.** **R8 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX** **R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN** **R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)** **R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(C).No. 1008 of 2018 (O4)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S N.506/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.9.13 IN I.A NO.2434/2013 IN O.S NO.506/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.7.15 IN I.A NO.1678/2015 IN O.S NO.506/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.10.15 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM DISPOSING I.A NOS. 1884/2015, 1940/2015 AND 2732/2015 IN O.S N.506/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.8.16 IN I.A NO. 2030/2016 IN O.S NO.506/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF KALPANA/CIRCULAR DATED 15.4.16 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.3.17 IN O.P(C) 2281/2016 OF THIS COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.17 IN O.P(C) NO.2281/2016 OF THIS COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S NOTICE DATED 18.8.17 ISSUED TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE KNANAYA ASSOCIATION TO CONVENE A MEETING OF THE SAID ASSOCIATION ON 12.9.17.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF KALPANA DATED 7.9.17 ISSUED BY PETITIONER, INFORMING THAT THE NEXT KNANAYA ASSOCIATION WOULD BY HELD ON 3.10.17.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.10.17 IN I.A 3369/2017 IN O.S NO. 632/2017 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE KNANAYA ASSOCIATION HELD ON 3.10.17.** **EXHIBIT P12A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.10.17 IN I.A 1738/2017 IN O.P(C) NO.2281/2016 OF THIS COURT.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S KALPANA DATED 9.10.17, ASKING THE ALMAYA TRUSTEE AND SECRETARY OF THE KNANAYA ASSOCIATION, WHO WERE REMOVED FROM THEIR OFFICES ON 3.10.17, TO HAND OVER THE RECORDS,KEYS AND CASH BALANCE.** **OP(C).No. 1008 of 2018 (O4) 2** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.3527/2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 HEREIN IN O.S NO.506/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT HEREIN (PLANNING IN O.S NO. 506/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM) AGAINST THE MAINTAINABILITY OF EXT P14 APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTION AGAINST THE MAINTAINABILITY OF EXT.P14 APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.12.17 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KOTTAYAM DISPOSING EXHIBIT P14 APPLICATION (I.A 3527/2017).** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **OKB** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, J** ## --------------------------------- ## **O.P.(C) No.1008 of 2018** ---------------------------------- _Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2018_ ## **JUDGMENT** The O.S.No.506/2013 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam reflects the faction fight of the Parishers of Malankara Suriyani Knanaya Church. After the institution of the said suit, there was a flood of filing of original petitions before this Court. This is one among them, but not the last. The dispute in this petition is regarding an order passed by the court below in I.A.No.3527/2017, in O.S.No.506/2013. It was an injunction order, wherein the operative portion is as follows: In the result, IA allowed and the fifth defendant or anybody under him, as hereby restrained from issuing any _kalpanas_ or from taking any action on the basis of the association meeting dated 03.10.2017.” ## 2. The original suit was filed with the prayers: (a) to declare that defendants 1 to 3 are not having any right or authority to call for the meeting of 1[st] defendantassociation without permission from 5[th] defendant, and that they have violated clause-124 of the Bhadrasana _O.P(C).1008/18_ **:2:** Constitution. b) to declare that the defendants 1 to 3 have no authority to amend the Constitution of the Bhadrasanam as proposed in the draft Constitution Amendment Memorandum appended along with the plaint, and to declare it as illegal, void and outcome of abuse of authority and beyond the jurisdiction of 1[st] defendant- Association, in view of clause98B of the Bhadrasana Constitution. c) To pass such other incidental reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the suit and d) to allow the plaintiff to realise his full costs in the suit from the defendants and out of their all movable and immovable assets. 3. The senior counsel, who argued on behalf of the petitioner, submitted before this Court that here is a case where the Arch Bishop/Chief Metropolitan was restrained by an injunction. The nature of the order and the authority of the Court to pass such an order is challenged before this Court. It is the submission of the learned counsel that, _prima facie,_ an _O.P(C).1008/18_ **:3:** order, styled as above, cannot be passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel that even Section 151 of the C.P.C. cannot be invoked. The petitioner who sought the injunction is none other than the defendant. The next point of argument advanced before this Court is that the nature of the institution has to be taken into consideration. It can be seen that it is an Association. It can be treated as a voluntary organisation. To buttress his contention, he relied upon **T.P.Daver v. Lodge Victoria No.363, S.C. Belgaum and Others [1963 KHC 601]** . It is the submission that when there is a constitution, the rights and powers of the person can be gathered only from the same and when the source of powers is such a Constitution, the civil court cannot interfere with the same. It is also the submission that the Constitution of the organisation contemplates a provision for an appeal as per Article 84(2) of the said Constitution. The counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court through various provisions of the Constitution and also submitted regarding the background of the case. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents _O.P(C).1008/18_ **:4:** submitted before this Court that here is a case where there was an earlier judgment of this Court and on the basis of such a judgment this order was passed. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to a particular paragraph (paragraph No.19) in the petition, wherein it is categorically stated that; “19. It is submitted that the meeting convened by the 5[th] defendant on 03.10.2017 is illegal and in violation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and of this Court. Hence the defendants 1 to 4 herein moved an I.A.No.1738/2017 in О.Р.(C) No.2281/16 on 04.10.2017 and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 05.10.2017 pleased to pass an interim order staying the operation of the decision dated 03.10.2017 and posted the case to 16.10.2017 for counter if any. In flagrant violation of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala the fifth defendant is issuing Kalpanas implementing the decisions taken on 03.10.2017. He issued a Kalpana on 07.10.2017 No.158/17 implementing the decisions of the newly appointed Managing committee. He issued a letter to the Samudaya Trustee on 09.10.2017 requesting him to hand over charge, records and keys as new office bearers are appointed. The action of the 5[th] defendant is as he is omni potent and above the judiciary. Other Metrapolitas who are conferred with administration of our respective regions as early as in 2009 on the basis of the Kalpana issued by the 5[th] defendant in pursuance of the decision of the Association is put in trouble and the Samudayam as such in utter confusion by the high handed action of the 5[th] defendant. It will be in violation of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala also. We have got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in our favour. In the circumstances it is in the interest of justice to restrain the fifth defendant from acting in accordance with the decisions taken on 03.10.2017. Hence it is humbly _O.P(C).1008/18_ **:5:** prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the 5[th] defendant from issuing any kalpanas or taking any actions on the basis of the decisions of the illegal Association meeting dated 3.10.2017.” It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the meeting and decision taken on 3.10.2017 was also held as “nullified” by this Court. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the court below, which was essential under the circumstances and balance of convenience is also therein so as to substantiate the directions of the court. 5. Now, the background of the case is also relevant to be noted. As I have already said, there was a flood of filing of original petitions before this Court. There is only one suit before the court below. But the High Court is burdened with a number of original petitions. This Court, while disposing O.P(C) Nos.1773, 2281, 3074 and 3335 of 2016 and 2339 of 2017, gave the following directions:- - i. The impugned judgment in O.P(C) No.1773 of 2016 is set aside and the issue is ordered to be reconsidered at the time of trial. - ii. The impugned order in O.P(C) No.2281 of 2016 is set aside. _O.P(C).1008/18_ **:6:** - iii. The parties are directed to follow 2003 Constitution till the disposal of the suit. However, the Chief Metropolitan shall not unsettle the actions which have been implemented if any during the period between dismissal and restoration of the suit. - iv. The **parties** _(emphasis is supplied by this Court)_ shall not change the structure or composition of the Knanaya Association till the suit is disposed of. - v. The court below is directed to dispose of the suit untrammelled by the observations in this judgment. - vi. I.A.No.847 of 2017 in O.P(C) No.2281 of 2016 is allowed as prayed. - vii. The court below shall list the suit for trial in January 2018. If there is no Presiding Officer, the suit shall be made over to Additional Munsiff Court. 6. The dispute now is with regard to the right of the parties to amend the Constitution. The suit itself was filed to restrain such an action. But, it appears that the suit was earlier dismissed for default. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1678/2015 to revive the interim order of temporary injunction and the court below allowed it and challenging the same O.P.(C) No.1761/2015 was preferred before this Court where there was a finding to the effect that the amended constitution approved by the 5[th] respondent will be in force _O.P(C).1008/18_ **:7:** subject to the result of the suit. Thereafter, as already quoted, this Court gave a specific direction that parties shall not change the structure or composition of the Knanaya Association till the suit is disposed of. When those directions are therein, the question now before this Court is that whether a further direction as in the impugned order is warranted. 7. The _Kalpanas_ issued after the judgment of this Court should be in conformity with the directions issued by this Court. The corollary is that any _Kalpana_ against or is not conforming to the direction of this Court can be ignored by the trial court while deciding the case. When such an aspect is therein, the considered opinion of this Court is that an injunction/a direction as ordered need not be therein. Because, as already said, whatever _Kalpanas_ is given or ordered, it will be subject to the limitation prescribed by the mandate of this Court given while disposing the original petitions mentioned above. Untrammelled by any other observation of this Court, the court has to proceed with the trial. It is to be remembered that now there are two judgments from this Court; that should be followed by the court in letter and spirit. Treating them as the touchstone, while _O.P(C).1008/18_ **:8:** appreciating the materials came into existence after filing of the suit, the court shall proceed with. Thus it is found that the impugned order is unnecessary and will only create confusion, the said order is hereby set aside and the court below is further directed to proceed, as directed above. Thus, this Original petition is disposed of as stated above. **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH Judge** okb.