OP(C) Nos. 809/2021, 814/2021 and 821/2021 (leading case OP(C) No. 821/2021) — Paravur Sree Venkatachalapathy Devaswom elections

**OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **1** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **OP(C).No.809 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 267/2018 DATED 08-03-2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **PETITIONER/ ADDL. 8TH DEFENDANT:** **N.MADHAVA SHENOY AGED 68 YEARS S/O OF THE LATE V.NARAYANA SHENOY, V/250, KANNANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PRASASTHA, M.C ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** **BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 7:** |**1**|**SURESH MALLAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**S/O SURENDRA MALLAN, KANNANPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.**| |**2**|**MOHANDAS PRABHU,**| ||**AGED 68 YEARS**| ||**S/O RAMDAS PRABHU, KANNANPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.**| |**3**|**MANOJ PRABHU,**| ||**AGED 47 YEARS**| ||**S/O ANNANTHA PRABHU, KANNANPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.**| |**4**|**PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM,**| ||**PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR**| ||**VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683**| **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **2** ## **513. REP BY ITS PRESIDENT** **5 PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM, PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT ATMARAM PRABHU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O VEDANATHA PRABHU, KANNANPARAMBIL HOUSE, REPUBLIC ROAD, PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** **6 PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513, REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR P VENUGOPAL PRABHU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O PADMANABHA PRABHU, KANNANPARAMBIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT NEAR TOWN L.P SCHOOL, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** - **7 PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, REP BY ITS COMMITTEE MEMBER, SATHYANATHA SHENOY, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O RAM MOHAN SHENOY, PAININKAL HOUSE, RESIDING AT NEAR WHITE CITY HOTEL, PARAVUR KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** **8 PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM PARAVURTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, REP BY ITS COMMITTEE MEMBER, RAMESH SHENOY, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O KAMALAM, KANNANPARAMBIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT PERUMANNAM COTTAGE ROAD, PARAVUTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** ## **9 VENUGOPALA PAI,** **AGED 49 YEARS** **S/O SUDHAKARA PAI, KANNANPARAMBIL, POTTAMTHERUVU, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR P.O.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** ## **10 GOVINDA PAI, AGED 71 YEARS** **S/O PADHMANABHA PAI, KANNANPARAMBIL, PERUMANNAM COLLEGE ROAD, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR P.O.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** - ***11 VINURAJ.R** **AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF RANGANATHA MALLAN, JYOTHI NIVAS, CHUDUKADU PARAMBU, KMK JUNCTION,** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **3** **NORTH PARAVUR – 683 513.** **MAJUNATH.R.SHENOY, AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF 12. RAMANATHA SHENOY, KANNANPARAMBU HOUSE, KMK JUNCTION, NORTH PARAVUR – 683513.** **13. O.H.RAJAGOPAA BHAT, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.HARI BHAT, 17/205A, OLAYIPADAM HOUSE, 'KADAVATH ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR – 683 513.** **14. ARAVINDAKSHA PRABHU, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.RANGANATHA PRABHU, SWARGATH MADOM, THONIAKAVU, NORTH PARAVUR – 683 513.** > 15. **ROHITH U. SHENOY, AGED 30 YEARS, SON OF UDAYACHANDRA SHENOY, VIJAY VIHAR, PARK VIEW ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR – 683 513.** **R11 – 15 BY ADV. B.ASHOK SHENOY R11 – 15 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.GIREESH R11 – 15 BY ADV. SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY ADDL. R11 TO R15 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.1/2021 DATED 31.3.2021.** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2021, ALONG WITH OPC NOS.814 & 821/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **4** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **OP(C).No.814 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 267/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **- PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 6 AND 7** **1 VENUGOPALA PAI AGED 49 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARA PAI, KANNAMPARAMBIL, POTTAMTHERUVU, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR -683513.** **2 GOVINDA PAI, S/O. PATHMANABHA PAI, KANNAMPARAMBIL, PERUMANAM COLLEGE ROAD, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR -683513.** **BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.V.T.LITHA SMT.K.R.MONISHA SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS:** |**1**|**SURESH MALLAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 48 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SURENDRA MALLAN, KANNAMPARAMBU VEETTIL, ,**| ||**PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR**| ||**-683513.**| |**2**|**MOHANDAS PRABHU,**| ||**AGED 68 YEARS**| ||**S/O. RAMDAS PRABHU, KANNAMPARAMBU VEETTIL,**| ||**PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR**| ||**-683513.**| **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **5** - **3 MANOJ PRABU, AGED 48 YEARS** - **S/O. ANANDHA PRABHU, KANNAMPARAMBU VEETTIL, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR -683513.** - **4 SREE VENKETACHALAPATHY DEVASWAM, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR -683513.** - **5 ATHMARAM PRABHU, AGED 46 YEARS** - **S/O. VENDANATHA PRABHU, KANNAMPARAMBU VEETTIL, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR -683513.** - **6 P.VENUGOPALA PRABHU, S/O. PATHMANABHA PRABHU, KANNAMPARAMBU VEETTIL, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR -683513.** - **7 SATHYANATHA SHENOY, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. RAMMOHAN SHENOY, PAININGAL VEETTIL, PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR -683513.** - **8 RAMESH SHENOY, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. KAMALAM, KANNAMPARAMBU VEETTIL, , PARAVUTHARA KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR -683513.** - ***9. VINURAJ.R AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF RANGANATHA MALLAN, JYOTHI NIVAS, CHUDUKADU PARAMBU, KMK JUNCTION, NORTH PARAVUR – 683 513.** **10. MAJUNATH.R.SHENOY, AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF RAMANATHA SHENOY, KANNANPARAMBU HOUSE, KMK JUNCTION, NORTH PARAVUR – 683513.** **11. O.H.RAJAGOPAA BHAT, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.HARI BHAT, 17/205A, OLAYIPADAM HOUSE, 'KADAVATH ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR – 683 513.** **12. ARAVINDAKSHA PRABHU, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.RANGANATHA PRABHU,** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **6** **SWARGATH MADOM, THONIAKAVU, NORTH PARAVUR – 683 513.** **ROHITH U. SHENOY, 13. AGED 30 YEARS, SON OF UDAYACHANDRA SHENOY, VIJAY VIHAR, PARK VIEW ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR – 683 513.** **R9 -R13BY ADV. B.ASHOK SHENOY R9 – R13VBY ADV. SRI.P.S.GIREESH R9 – R13 BY ADV. SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY** **ADDL. R9- R13 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A NO.1/2021 DATED 31.3.2021.** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2021, ALONG WITH OPC NOS.809 & 821/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **7** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943** **OP(C).No.821 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 267/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** ## **PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 AND 5:** - **1 PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM PARAVUTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683 513.** **2 PARAVU SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ATMARAM PRABHU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.VEDANADHA PRABHU, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, REPUBLIC ROAD, PARAVUTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVU TALUK, PIN - 683 513.** **3 PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, P.VENUGOPAL PRABHU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHA PRABHU, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR PARAVUR TOWN L.P.SCHOOL, PARAVUTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683 513.** **4 PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMITTEE MEMBER, RAMESH SHENOY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KAMALAM, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMANAM COTTAGE ROAD, PARAVUTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683 513.** **BY ADVS. SHRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.V.S.SREEJITH SRI.K.SUNIL SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN SMT.ALEENA MARIA JOSE SMT.SUSAN JACOB (S-3481)** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **8** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & 4TH DEFENDANT:** |**1**|**SURESH MALLAN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SURENDRA MALLAN, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**PARAVUTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,**| ||**PIN - 683 513.**| |**2**|**MOHANDAS PRABHU**| ||**AGED 68 YEARS**| ||**S/O.RAMADAS PRABHU, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**PARAVUTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,**| ||**PIN - 683 513.**| |**3**|**MANOJ PRABU**| ||**AGED 47 YEARS**| ||**S/O.ANANTHA PRABHU, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**PARAVUTHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,**| ||**PIN - 683 513.**| |**4**|**PARAVUR SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMITTEE MEMBER, SATHYANADHA**| ||**SHENOY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.RAM MOHAN SHENOY,**| ||**PAININKAL HOUSE, NEAR WHITE CITY HOTEL, PARAVUTHARA**| ||**MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683**| ||**513.**| - ***5. P.MURENDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, SON OF LATE PADMANABHA PRABHU, KANNANPARAMU VEETTIL, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN – 683 513, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **6. PURUSHOTHAMA PAI, AGED 68 YEARS,SON OF LATE KRISHNA PAI, KANNANPARAMBIL, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN – 683 513, PARAVUR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK,'ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **7. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF LATE K.K.PURUSHOTHAMA PAI, CHIRAKULAM VEETTIL, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683 513, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **R5 BY ADV. K.R.VINOD R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.S.LETHA** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **9** ***ADDL. R5 TO R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. 1 OF 2021 DATED 31.3.2021.** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2021, ALONG WITH OPC NOS.809 & 814 OF 2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **10** ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** Dated this the 31st day of March 2021 The original petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 08.03.2021 in I.A.Nos.3, 5 and 6/2020 in OS No.267/2018 of the Court of the Munsiff, North Paravur. As the ‘lis’ in the original petitions pertain to the elections of the Paravur Sree Venkatachalapathy Devaswom (in short ‘Devaswom)’ and arise out of the above common order and the parties are almost the same, the original petitions were consolidated and jointly heard and are being determined by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in OP(C) No.809/2021 is the addl. 8th defendant in the suit and the petitioner in I.A.No.6/2020. The respondents in the original petition are the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 in the suit and the respondents in the above application. 3. The petitioners in OP(C) No.814/2021 are the addl.defendants 6 and 7 in the suit and the petitioners in **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **11** I.A.No.3/2020. The respondents in the original petition are the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit and the respondents in the above application. 4. The petitioners in OP(C) No.821/2021 are the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 in the suit and the petitioners in I.A.No.5/2020. The respondents in the original petition are the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit and the respondents in the above application. 5. The parties and the facts, for the sake of convenience, are referred to in OP(C) No.821/2021, which is treated as the leading case. 6. The facts in brief in OP(C)No.821/2021, relevant for the determination of the original petitions, are : (i) The petitioners had filed I.A.No.5/2020 in O.S.No.267/2018, for considering the eligibility of the members included in the final voters list published by the Advocate Commissioner and to prepare the final voters list in accordance with the Ext.P6 byelaw. (ii) O.S.No.267/2018 (Ext.P1) is filed, inter alia, not to **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **12** convene the elections without publishing the list in the notice board and to convene the general body and elections as per the byelaw. Exts P-2 to P5 suits have also been filed. The petitioners have filed a written statement highlighting that Ext.P1 is not maintainable. (iii) I.A.No.939/2019 was filed for an interim mandatory injunction to conduct the election. By order dated 11.3.2019 (Ext.P7) the learned Munsiff allowed the above application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to monitor and supervise the election. However, the Advocate Commissioner became the official spoke man of one side. Hence I.A.No.1546/2019 was filed to remove the Advocate Commissioner. By Ext.P-9 another Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who commenced the process of election. (iv) The petitioners filed I.A.2765/2019 (Ext.P10) to direct the Advocate Commissioner to prepare the preliminary voters list, calling for objection, prepare and publish final voters list etc., which was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by Ext.P11. **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **13** (v) The petitioners challenged Ext.P11 before this Court in OP(C)No.1257/2019. They also filed O.P.(C)No.1257/2019 challenging Ext.P7. (vi) This Court by Ext.P12 common judgment directed the election to be conducted. (vii) The Advocate Commissioner published Ext.P13 election notification and Ext.P14 election programme on 27.11.2020. He also published Ext.P-15 draft/preliminary voters list. Thereafter, by Ext.P-16, he asked the petitioners to produce documents, which were handed over by Ext.P17 letter. The petitioners also handed over Exts.P18 to P18 (e) objections to the Advocate Commissioner, regarding the inclusion of members in the draft voters list. Without considering the objections, the Advocate Commissioner published Ext.P-19 final voters list. (viii) On the basis of the observation in Ext.P12, the petitioners filed I.A.No.5/2020 (Ext.P-20), to which Ext.P21 counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. I.A.Nos.3 and 6 of 2020 were filed for impleadment of additional **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **14** respondents. (ix) The learned Munsiff directed the Advocate Commissioner to produce the documents relied by him to prepare the final voters list. Along with Ext.P-24 report, the Advocate Commissioner produced Ext.P22 list of documents and Ext.P-23 final voters list. (x) The learned Munsiff by order dated 8.3.2021 (Ext.P25) dismissed I.A.No.5/2021. 7. In OP(C) No.809/2021 the petitioner had filed I.A.No.6/2020 to direct the Advocate Commissioner not to permit the persons included in the voters list to cast their votes without the approval of the Mahajanayogam and Devaswom Managing Committee and to conduct the elections as per the bye-laws. 8. In OP(C) No.814/2021 the petitioners had filed I.A.No.3/2020 to direct the Advocate Commissioner to stop the election process and to issue directions to him regarding the manner in conducting the election. 9. Heard Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, the learned Counsel for **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **15** the petitioner in OP(C)No.809/2021, Sri.Thomas.T.Varghese, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in OP(C) No.814/2021, Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in OP(C) .No.821/2021, Sri.Lakshmi Narayan and Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and Sri.K.R.Vinod, the learned Counsel appearing for impleading petitioners. 10. The sheet anchor of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the Advocate Commissioner has arbitrarily and in flagrant violation of the byelaws eliminated eligible persons and included ineligible persons in the Ext.P19 final voters list. He has also permitted ineligible persons to contest the elections. The action of the Advocate Commissioner is vitiated and smacked with malafides. Therefore, the entire election process has to be stopped and the objections to the draft voters list have to be reconsidered. Despite ventilating their grievances before the Trial Court, the learned Munsiff unmindful of the prejudices and injustice caused to the petitioners dismissed the **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **16** applications by the impugned order in a cursory and perfunctory manner. Hence the original petitions. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, supported the impugned order and contended that the sole oblique intention of the petitioners is to protract the elections by adopting all sorts of dilatory tactics and cling on to the management. The Trial Court on being prima facie satisfied, that the Advocate Commissioner has finalised the final voters list in accordance with law, dismissed the applications. Thus, there is no scope for any interference by this Court. It is trite, once an election process commences, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the same. Therefore, the original petitions may be dismissed. 12. The point that emanates for consideration in these original petitions is whether Exts.P-25 common order is sustainable in law or not. 13. The learned Munsiff by Ext.P-7 order passed an order of mandatory injunction allowing the following reliefs: “In view of the foregoing discussions and findings, I am satisfied that it is only just and proper that the petition be allowed **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **17** to meet the ends of justice. The point is answered accordingly. 13. Point No.2: In the result, the petition is allowed and the following order is passed: a) It is directed that the present executive committee of the 1[st] respondent devaswom including respondent nos.2 to 5 commence the procedure for conduct of election to the post of executive committee members within a period of two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. b) Such election shall be conducted by respondent nos.2 to 5 strictly in accordance with the provision of Ext.A1 bye-law. I is further clarified that where specific provision/ time limit is prescribed in Ext.A1 bye law for performance of various procedures connected with the election to the posts of members of the executive committee, the said procedure shall be followed and where no such procedure/time limit has been prescribed in Ext.Aq, the procedure/time limit, the Advocate Commissioner shall follow a procedure/time limit which he, under he facts and circumstance in the field deem just, reasonable and proper and also necessary and feasible to conclude the elections within the prescribed time frame. c) The election procedure which shall commence on expiry of two weeks from th date of receipt of a copy of this order shall be concluded within a period of four months therefrom. **d) Advocate Shri.C.S.Sunilkumar Pai is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner and all the procedures in connection with the election directed to be conducted vide Clauses (a) to (c) herein shall be conducted by the present executive committee of the 1[st] respondent including R2 to R5 under the supervision and monitoring of the said Advocate Commissioner.** A batta of Rs.10,000/- is fixed as the commission which shall be shared in equal proportion by the petitioners and the 1[st] defendant devaswom. **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **18** e) Furnish a copy of this order forthwith, with least practicable delay to the Advocate Commissioner who shall, on receipt thereof, intimate and direct the present executive committee of the 1[st] respondent devaswom (including R2 to R5) to conduct election as directed above under his monitoring and supervision. f) The parties shall suffer their respective costs.” ## (emphasis given) ## 14. Later the defendants filed Ext.P-8 application seeking the following reliefs. “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to remove Sri.C.S.Sunil Kumar from the post of Advocate Commissioner and **appoint another senior Hindu Advocate of Paravur Bar as Advocate Commissioner for performing the following procedures in the matter of Mahajana Yogam and election of the 1[st] respondent.** i. **Consider the objections raised by the members against the draft voters list and finalize and publish final voters list.** ii. **The Advocate Commissioner may be empowered to conduct hearing on the objections and eligibility to become member may be considered on the basis of provisions in Clause V (8) & (9) of the byelaws.** iii. **The Advocate Commissioner may be empowered to (1) print and issue nomination papers (2) accept duly filed nominations (3) Prescribe formality for proposal and seconding of nominations (4) fix last date for receiving nomination (5) fix the date withdrawing nominations (6)** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **19** ## **fix the date for publishing the list of valid nominations (7) fix the date for election and publication of results.** iv. Submit a detailed report regarding the formalities and procedures in relation to item Numbers 1, II, II above.” ## (emphasis given) ## 15. The learned Munsiff by Ext.P-9 order allowed the Ext.P-8 application, which reads thus:- “Petition to appoint new commission. Copies served to all parties concerned including present Adv.Commissioner. No objection reported by all. Hence, petition allowed. Adv.T.B.Jayadeep, Paravur Bar Association, N.Paravur is appointed. Pay commission batha Rs.10,000/-. For commission report to 19.09.2019.” ## 16. Even though the defendants challenged Ext.P7 order, this Court by Ext.P-12 judgment disposed the original petitions by ordering as follows:- “6. As noticed supra, as per order on I.A 939/18 election was directed to be conducted. **The application filed by the defendant as IA 1546/19, though allowed by the trial court, does not explicitly mention that all the prayers sought for in the said application are granted. I clarify that all the prayers sought for in IA 1546/19 has been granted while allowing the said application as per order dated 12.07.19, by the learned Munsiff.** 7. **Election has to be conducted in terms of the directions in IA 939/18 and IA 1546/19. Defendants as well** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **20** **as the Commissioner shall take necessary steps in the said regard without further delay. If the Advocate Commissioner or the parties need any clarification with regard to any of the steps in the process of election, it shall be open for any of them to seek for appropriate clarifications/directions from the court. If so moved, it shall be open for the court to consider whether any further directions are called for or of the directions already given are sufficient enough, and pass appropriate orders.** The learned counsel for the Devaswom submits that the relevant records have been produced in another suit pending before the same court and that the same will have to be returned for production before the Advocate Commissioner. Necessary steps in the said regard shall be taken forthwith and the records shall be made available to the Advocate Commissioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three weeks from today. The learned Munsiff shall cause the orders of the court to be implemented by the parties. IA 2765/2019 will stand ordered accordingly. The original petitions are disposed of as above.” (emphasis given) 17. In light of Ext.P-12 judgment, the Advocate Commissioner has been empowered and enamoured with complete autonomy to perform the entire procedure for the Mahajanayogam and elections of the Devaswom, commencing from consideration of objections till the publication of results, that too on Ext.P-8 application filed by **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **21** the defendants themselves. 18. On the basis of the power vested and bestowed on the Advocate Commissioner, he published Ext.P.13 election notification, Ext.P-14 election programme and Ext.P-15 draft voters list, on the basis of the documents produced with Ext.P-16. Although the petitioners filed objections to the draft voters list, the Advocate Commissioner published Ext.P-19 final voters list. 19. Aggrieved by the Ext.P-19, the petitioners filed the above applications seeking separate reliefs as mentioned supra, which stands dismissed by Ext.P-25 common order. 20. As per Clause III(2) of the byelaws, there are three categories of members for the Devaswom namely : (i) Gowda Saraswatha Brahmins (GSBs) who have residing in Paravur since ancient period (ii) GSBs who have shifted to other places in connection with their employment or otherwise, but considering the 1st defendants as their temple for offering regular vazhipady and (iii) GSBs who have completed 2 years continues residence in Paravur after their **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **22** migration from other places. 21. As per Clause IV (9) of the byelaws only such members can contest to the post of the Administrative Committee after 5 years from the date of membership. 22. It is only to inferred and assumed that the Advocate Commissioner has published Ext.P19 voters list after considering the objections of the petitioners, and in accordance with the byelaws of the Devaswom. 23. The learned Munsiff rejected the objections of the petitioners to Ext.P19 for want of pleadings and materials, as reflected in paragraph 19 of Ext.P-25. 24. My mind is immediately kindled with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shaji K Joseph v. V.Viswanth R [AIR 2016 SC 1094, which reads thus: “ **14. xxx xxx xxx in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court’s order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **23** **interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.** **15. This Court, in** Ponnuswami v. Returning Office **(supra) has held that once the election process starts, it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the election process. Similar view was taken by this Court in** Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra **(supra).** **16. Thus, in view of the aforestated settled legal position, the High Court should not have interfered with the process of election. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and direct that the result of the election should be published. xxx xxx xxx”** 25. Following Shaji K Joseph (supra) a Division Bench of this Court in **Denny v. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies** [2019 KHC 4954], in a case of almost identical facts held as follows:- “12. In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll is being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, **it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll.** It is not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **24** has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of returned candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the election tribunal.” In short, in view of the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Shaji K.Joseph's** case and **Shri.Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami's** case (supra) **it would reveal that merely because of illegality in the matter of preparation of electoral roll including inclusion of ineligible persons is alleged and the materials before the Electoral Officer are insufficient to determine the question of ineligibility of members to remain as voters courts would not be justified in interfering with the election process once it is started because such illegality, if established later, could be dealt with appropriately in an Election Petition.** In the case on hand, the fact is that Annexure-A4 has not been under challenge. When the fact is that such alleged ineligible persons are not at all removed from the membership and also from the preliminary voters list and taking note of Ammexure-A4, we are of the view that it will only be just and proper to permit the election go on based on the final voters list already published. At the same time, taking note of the nature of the allegations, we are of the view that it is only just and proper to direct the Returning Officer to ensure that votes of 1255 members included in the final voters list who are allegedly ineligible and against whom already complaints have been made, are put in a separate box and after the election in accordance with law the result can be published. Needless to say that grievance with respect to the election can appropriately be taken up by the parties in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of as above.” **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **25** (emphasis given) 26. In the present case, the petitioners allege that the Advocate Commissioner has arbitrarily and in flagrant violation of the byelaws of eliminated eligible persons and included ineligible persons in the Ext.P-19 final voters list and has also permitted ineligible persons to contest the elections. The learned Munsiff has found that other than for the vague statement there is no material to prove the assertion and the petitioners’ objection is not bona fide. 27. Be that as it may, the Advocate Commissioner has finalised the voters list in exercise of the powers bestowed on him by Court. Whether he has exercised the power judicially or capriciously is a matter of evidence, which can only be decided only after a full-fledged trial as laid down in **Shaji K.Joseph and Denny** (supra). We cannot at this nascent stage have a thread bare analysis of the disputed questions on the basis of pleadings and materials on record. The prima facie finding and satisfaction of the learned Munsiff on Ext.P19 is not a matter to be visited or **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **26** determined by this Court in exercise of its supervisory powers as enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 28. The objection regarding the decision of the Advocate Commissioner to conduct the election in the Sree Venkateswara Hall instead of the yogasala is naive and illogical, considering the pandemic times that we are going through. There is no merit in the said objection. 29. The contention of the petitioners in I.A.No.5/2020 is also unsustainable in law in view of Ext.P-12 judgment passed by this Court and has been rightly dealt with by the learned Munsiff. 30. As regards I.A.No.6/2020, the learned Munsiff has already directed the Advocate Commissioner to correct the house number in the final voters list. It is contended that, despite the order the same has not been done. In such circumstances, the Advocate Commissioner is forthwith directed to carry out the correction. 31. On an overall appreciation of pleadings and **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **27** materials on record and hearing the respective learned counsel, I am of the definite opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the Ext.P25 common order warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, all the original petitions fail and are hence dismissed. Needless to mention that the petitioners would be at liberty to raise their objections regarding the action of the Advocate Commissioner during the trial of suit, which shall be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. **Sd/-C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ma/03.04.2021 /True copy/ **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **28** ## **APPENDIX** ## **OPC 809/2021** ## **PETITIONERS/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 13.4.2018 IN OS NO 267/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT DEVASWOM.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA NO 939/2018 IN OS NO 267/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT NORTH PARAVUR** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.3.2019 IN IA NO 939/2018 IN OS 267/2018** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF IA NO 1546 OF 2019 AND ALONG WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.7.2019 IN IA NO 1546 OF 2019** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF IA 2765/2019 IN OS 267/2018** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 4.3.2020 IN OPC 1257 86/2020** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.11.2020 OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY LIST OF VOTERS** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON 3.12.2020** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON 7.12.2020** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED AS IA 3/2020 BY THE RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **29** **EXHIBIT P14** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILD AS IA 6/2020 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT IN IA 5/2020** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 8.3.2021 IN IA 6/2020** **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 634 OF 2017** **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 488 OF 2019** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 573 OF 2019** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 15 OF 2021 EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 24.10.2018 IN OS 634/2017 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR** **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON 15.1.2021** **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON 19.3.2021 EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL LIST OF VOTERS PUBLISHED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON 19.3.2021** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **30** ## INDEX ## O.P(C) NO.814/2021 ## PETITIONERS EXHIBITS **Ext.P1 TRUE COPY OF BYELAWS OF SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM.** **Ext.P2 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.267/2018 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR DATED 13.4.2018.** **Ext.P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.938/2018 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 DATED 13.4.2018 IN THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR.** **Ext.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF INJUNCTION PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR IN I.A.NO.938/2018 IN O.S.NO.267/2018.** **Ext.P5 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5 DATED 18.9.2019 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT PARAVUR.** **Ext.P6 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.939/2019 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 IN THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **Ext.P7 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A.NO.939/2018 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 28.6.2018.** **Ext.P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.3.2019 PASSED BY MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR IN I.A.NO.939/2018 IN O.S.NO.267/2018.** **Ext.P9 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1546/2019 FILED IN O.S.NO.267/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **Ext.P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.7.2019 IN I.A.NO.1546/2019 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **Ext.P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.9.2019 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE T.G.JAYADEEP NORTH PARAVUR.** **Ext.P12 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2765/2019 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **Ext.P13 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO.2765/2019 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 DATED 23.11.2019.** **Ext.P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 IN I.A.NO.2765/2019 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **31** **Ext.P15 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4.3.2020 IN OP(C) NO.1257/2019 AND OP(C)NO.86/2020 BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **Ext.P16 TRUE COPY OF IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY PETITIONERS AS I.A.NO.1/2020 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR DATED 24.1.2020.** **Ext.P17 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3/2020 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 DATED 7.12.2020 FILED IN MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **Ext.P18 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR IN I.A.NO.3/2020 IN O.S.NO.267/2018 DATED 8.3.2021.** **Ext.P19 TRUE COPY OF ELECTION NOTIFICATION IN RESPECT OF ELECTIONS TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SREE VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM, PARAVUR DATED 19.3.2021.** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **32** INDEX ## OPC NO.821/2021 ## PETITIONERS EXHIBITS **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.267 OF 2018 ON THE FILES MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR.** **EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.183 OF 2019 ON THE FILES MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR.** **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.488 OF 2019 ON THE FILES MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR.** **EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.573 OF 2019 ON THE FILES MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR.** **EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.15 OF 2021 ON THE FILES MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR.** **EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAWS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.939 OF 2018 DATED 11/3/2019.** **EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS I.A.NO.1546 OF 2019.** **EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER MR.T.B.JAYADEEP.** **EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.2765 OF 2019.** **EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/12/2019 IN I.A.NO.2765 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.267 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4TH MARCH 2020 IN O.P.(C)** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **33** **NO.1257 OF 2019 ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 27/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.** **EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION PROGRAMME DATED 27/11/2020 ISSUED BY RETURNING OFFICER.** **EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PRELIMINARY VOTERS LIST DATED 30/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER.** **EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4/12/2020 ISSUED BY RETURNING OFFICER.** **EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL RECEIVED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER WITH ENDORSEMENT ON 7/12/2020.** **EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SVD01/2020 DATED 9/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P18 (a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SVD02/2020 DATED 9/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P18 (b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SVD03/2020 DATED 9/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P18 (c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SVD04/2020 DATED 9/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P18 (d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SVD05/2020 DATED 9/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P18(e) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SVD06/2020 DATED 9/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P18(f) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SVD07/2020 DATED 9/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL LIST OF VOTERS PUBLISHED BY THE** **OP(C).No.809/2021 & connected cases** **34** **RETURNING OFFICER DATED 11/12/2020.** **EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.5 OF 2020 IN O.S.NO.267 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN I.A.NO.5O OF 2020 IN O.S.NO.267 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN I.A.NO.1546 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.267 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **EXT.P23 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.** **EXT.P24 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 24TH OCTOBER, 2018 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN I.A.NO.2175 OF 2017 IN O.S.NO.634 OF 2017 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **EXT. P25 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 8TH MARCH, 2021 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2020, IA NO.5 OF 2020 AND I.A.NO.6 OF 2020 IN O.S.NO.267 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.**