OP(C).1483/2019; OP(C).1497/2019; OP(C).1980/2019; OP(C).2106/2019 Common Judgment

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **OP(C).No.1483 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 20/2013 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 3 & 5 TO 7, 4th DEFENDANT DIED:** **1 K.P.MATHAIKUNJU, AGED 63 YEARS S/O PAILIPPILLAI, KEERIKKATTIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (PO), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310.** **2 V.V.YACOB, AGED 67 YEARS S/O VARKEY, VATTAPPARA HOUSE, PANCODI P.O.VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310.** - **3 FR. M.P.JOSE, AGED 62 YEARS S/O M.O.POULSE, MOOTHARIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (PO), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310.** - **4 M.V.VARGHESE, AGED 67 YEARS S/O VARKEY, MUPLASSERY HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (PO), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.PHILIP SRI.P.P.KURIEN** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 4 - DEFENDANTS 1, 2 & 8 & 9:** - **1 KURIAHAN.K.K, AGED 69 YEARS S/O LATE KURIAKOSE K.P.KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PANCODE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310.** - **2 NIKHIL JACOB, AGED 29 YEARS S/O SHRI JACOB CHERIAN, NELLIKKARA THEKKEDATH, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310.** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 2 - **3 MATHEW C.P. AGED 66 YEARS S/O SHRI PAULOSE, CHOVATTEL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310.** - **4 PAILY PILLAI T.P., AGED 77 YEARS S/O LATE PAULOSE, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310.** - **5 SOMAN P PAUL, AGED 67 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI PAULOSE, PARANGETH HOUSE, OPPOSITE MAHIMA THEATRE, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 305.** - **6 ST. MARYS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, (REAL NAMES JACOB) REPRESENTED BY VICAR, REV. FR. O.J. JACOB, PIN 682 310.** - **7 REV. FR. O.J.JACOB, VICAR ST MARYS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUKODE, RESIDING AT ONASSERIL HOUSE, KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVANKULAM, PIN 682 302.** - **8 FR. KURIAKOSE THANNIKOTTE, VICE ST MARYS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUCODE, PIN 682 310** - **9 AFROTH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O ABRAHAM, EDAYANAL HOUSE, VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 310** - **10 ELDO K PAUL, AGED 22 YEARS S/O POULOSE KUTTY, KEERIKATTIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 310.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R9-10 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **ADV.S.SREEKUMAR(SR)** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.08.2019, ALONG WITH OP(C).1497/2019, OP(C).1980/2019, OP(C).2106/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **OP(C).No.1497 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 20/2013 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 3 & 5 TO 7, 4th DEFENDNAT DIED:** - **1 K.P.MATHAIKUNJU, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.PAILIPILLAI, KEERIKKATTIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (PO), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682310.** - **2 V.V.YACOB, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, VATTAPPARA HOUSE, PANCODI P.O., VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682310.** - **3 FR M.P.JOSE, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.M.O.POULOSE, MOOTHARIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (PO), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682310.** - **4 M.V.VARGHESE, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, MUPLASSERY HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (PO), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682310.** - **BY ADV. SRI.P.J.PHILIP** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 4 - DEFENDANTS 1, 2 & 8 & 9:** - **1 KURIACHAN K.K.,AGED 69 YEARS S/O.LATE SHRI KURIAKOSE K.P., KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PANCODE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682310.** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 4 - **2 NIKHIL JACOB, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.SHRI JACOB CHERIAN, NELLIKKARA THEKKEDATH, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682310.** - **3 MATHEW C.P., AGED 66 YEARS S/O.SHRI PAULOSE, CHOVATTEL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682310.** - **4 PAILY PILLAI T.P., AGED 77 YEARS S/O.LATE PAULOSE, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682310.** - **5 SOMAN P. PAUL, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.LATE SHRI PAULOSE, PARANGETH HOUSE, OPPOSITE MAHIMA THEATRE, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682305.** - **6 ST.MARY'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUKODE, REPRESENTED BY VICAR, RE.FR.O.J.JACOB, PIN-682310.** - **7 REV. FR. O.J.JACOB, VICAR, ST.MARY'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUKODE, RESIDING AT ONASSERIL HOUSE, KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVANKULAM, PIN-682302.** - **8 FR.KURIAKOSE THANNIKOTTE, VICAR, ST.MARY'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH , VADADUKODE, PIN-682310.** - **9 AFROTH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, EDAYANAL HOUSE, VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682310.** - **10 ELDO K.PAUL, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.POULOSE KUTTY, KEERIKATTIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682310.** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R9-10 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.08.2019, ALONG WITH OP(C).1483/2019, OP(C).1980/2019, OP(C).2106/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941** **OP(C).No.1980 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 20/2013 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 3 & 5 TO 7, 4th DEFENDANT DIED:** - **1 K.P.MATHAIKUNJU, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.PAILIPPILLAI, KEERIKKATTIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (P.O.), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310.** - **2 V.V.YACOB, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, VATTAPPARA HOUSE, PANCODI P.O., VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310.** - **3 FR.M.P.JOSE, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.M.O.POULOSE, MOOTHARIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (P.O.), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310.** - **4 M.V.VARGHESE, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, MUPLASSERY HOUSE, VADAVUKODE (P.O.), VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -682 310.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.PHILIP SMT.SMITHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 4 - DEFENDANTS 1, 2 & 8 & 9:** - **1 KURIACHAN K.K., S/O.LATE SHRI.KURIAKOSE K.P., AGED 69, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PANCODE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310.** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 6 - **2 NIKHIL JACOB, S/O.SHRI.JACOB CHERIAN, AGED 29, NELLIKKARA THEKKEDATH, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310.** - **3 MATHEW C.P., S/O.SHRI.PAULOSE, AGED 66, CHOVATTEL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310.** - **4 PAILY PILLAI T.P., S/O.LATE PAULOSE, AGED 77, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 310.** - **5 SOMAN P.PAUL, S/O.LATE SHRI.PAULOSE, AGED 67, PARANGETH HOUSE, OPPOSITE MAHIMA THEATRE, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 305.** - **6 ST.MARYS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUKODE, REPRESENTED BY VICAR, RE. FR.O.J.JACOB, PIN - 682 310.** - **7 REV.FR.O.J.JACOB, VICAR, ST.MARYS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUKODE, RESIDING AT ONASSERIL HOUSE, KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682 302.** - **8 FR.KURIAKOSE THANNIKOTTE, VICAR, ST.MARYS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUCODE, PIN - 682 310.** - **9 AFROTH, AGED 22, S/O.ABRAHAM, EDAYANAL HOUSE, VADAVUKOD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310.** - **10 ELDO K.PAUL, AGED 22, S/O.POULOSE KUTTY, KEERIKATTIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -682 310.** - **R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R6-8 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ R9-10 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.08.2019, ALONG WITH OP(C).1483/2019, OP(C).1497/2019, OP(C).2106/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 7 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **OP(C).No.2106 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 20/2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (SPECIAL COURT ESTABLISHED FOR CHURCHES)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**||**AFROTH**| |---|---|---| |||**AGED 24 YEARS**| |||**S/O. ABRAHAM, EDAYANAL HOUSE,**| |||**VADAVUCODE VILLAGE,**| |**2**||**ELDHO K PAUL**| |||**AGED 23 YEARS**| |||**S/O. PAULOSE KUTTY, KEERIKKATTIL HOUSE,**| |||**VADAVUCODE VILLAGE,**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||| |**1**|**KURIACHAN K K**| |---|---| ||**S/O. KURIAKOSE, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE,**| ||**VADAVUCODE, PIN-682310.**| |**2**|**NIKHIL**| ||**S/O. JACOB, NELLIKKARA THEKKEDATH HOUSE, VADAVUCODE**| ||**VILLAGE, PIN-682310.**| |**3**|**PAILEY,**| ||**S/O. PAULOSE, THEKKEDATH HOUSE,**| ||**VADAVUCODE VILLAGE, PIN-682310.**| |**4**|**SOMAN,**| ||**S/O. PAULOSE, PARANGETH HOUSE,**| ||**THIRUVANKULAM, PIN-682310.**| O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 8 - **5 ST. MARY'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX (REAL NAME IS JACOBITE) SYRIAN CHURCH VADAUCODE, PIN-682310, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR O.J. JACOB.** - **6 REF.FR.O.J. JACOB, VICAR, ST. MARY'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUCODE, RESIDING AT ONASSERIL HOUSE, KADUNGAMANGALAM, PIN-682310.** - **7 K.P. MATHAIKUNJU,** - **S/O. PAILIPILLAI, KEERIKKATTIL HOUSE, VADAVUCODE VILLAGE, PIN-682310.** - **8 V.V YACOB, S/O. VARKEY, VATTAPPARA HOUSE, VADAVUCODE, PIN682310.** - **9 FR.M.P. JOSE, S/O.M.O. PAULOSE, MOOTHARIL HOUSE, VADAVUCODE, PIN682310.** - **10 M.V. VARGHESE, S/O. VARKEY, MUPLASSERY HOUSE, VADAVUCODE, PIN682310.** - **11 FR. KURIAKOSE THANNIKOTTE,** - **VICAR, ST. MARY'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VADAVUCODE, PIN-682310.** ## **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.08.2019, ALONG WITH OP(C).1483/2019, OP(C).1497/2019, OP(C).1980/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 9 ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** All the above original petitions arise from OS No.20/2013, on the files of Special Court for trial of Church cases, Ernakulam. Additional defendants 9 to 10 are the petitioners in O.P.No.2106/2019. Defendant Nos. 3, and 5 to 7 are petitioners in the remaining three original petitions. 2. Respondents 1 to 4, who are the plaintiffs, filed the above suit for declaring that the first defendant church, of which they are the parishioners, shall be administered in accordance with 1934 Constitution, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction and for ancillary reliefs. Defendants appeared and filed their written statements. After issues were framed, trial commenced. It is admitted by both sides that, this Court had directed trial to be expedited and to conduct day-to-day trial, as far as possible. In the course of proceedings, the petitioners/defendants 3 and 5 to 7 filed I.A.No.1750/2019, I.A.No.3161/2019 and I.A.No.3980/2019. Additional defendants filed I.A.No.5018/2019. All petitions were dismissed by separate orders. They are impugned in the present original petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P.No.2106/2019 and the learned counsel for the petitioners in other original petitions, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the other respondents. O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 10 4. The prayer in IA No.1760/2019 was to examine four witnesses on the side of the above defendants who belonged to patriarch faction of Malankara Church. The persons to be examined were the Catholicos-cummetropolitan of Malankara Sabha, the Secretary of the Malankara Association and two other officials of Department of Archives, to produce authenticated copies of a Travancore court judgment and a judgment of Cochin Royal Court. This application was dismissed on the ground that, the Secretary who was only holding an administrative post, will not be able to give evidence of the matter and that examination of the catholicos was not necessary for any purpose related to the adjudication of the disputes involved in suit. Regarding the judgment to be summoned, the court below noticed that the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he has no objection in accepting the photo copies of the judgments, if produced. The main dispute was relating to the examination of Catholicos. 5. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the court below failed to notice the specific purpose for summoning the catholicos. It was to ascertain whether the Catholicos was accepting the patriarch of Antioch and whether he was in actual communion with him. Petitioners also wanted to know from Catholicos, whether he had given an open speech at Pathanamthitta insulting Patriarch. Regarding the Secretary of Malankara association, the purpose of summoning was to given evidence whether Malankara Association was accepting the patriarch of Antioch as the supreme patron of Malankara O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 11 Association, consistent with Mulanthuruthy Synod Resolutions. . It was also stated that, when PW5 was examined he had offered to produce Natapady Chattangal of election of members of Malankara Sabha, if summoned by the Court. Hence, the petitioner requested to direct the Secretary of Malankara Association to produce the Natapady Chattangal. 6. The main relief sought in the plaint was to declare that the first defendant shall be administered in accordance with 1934 Constitution. Ext.P4 written statement filed by the petitioners herein does not disclose that the facts now sought to be established by the examination of the catholicos, arise from the pleadings. The decisions of the Supreme Court in **Most Rev. PMA Metropolitan's and others v.Moran Marthoma and Another(1995 Suppl.(4) SCC 286)** and **K.S.Varghese vSt.Peter's & St.Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church & others (2017) 15 SCC 333** ) have concluded all the controversial issues pending, including the administration of churches and Malankara Association and spiritual and temporal powers of patriarch over churches and the management of churches under 1934 Constitution In the light of the binding nature of the above decision, the area of adjudication in the present suit seems to be limited. The examination of Catholicos in the above circumstances, does not appear to be necessary for the determination of any of the issues involved and not warranted for consideration as correctly held by the court below. 7. Regarding the summoning of the Secretary of Association, it appears that he was examined as a witness on the side of plaintiff. Hence, O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 12 he cannot be summoned on the side of the defendants. According to the petitioner, certain facts are yet to be elicited from him. If the petitioners have omitted to ask certain questions, it cannot be a justification for summoning him again on the side of the defendants. Regarding the Natapady Chattangal of the election of members of Malankara Association, the court below has correctly held that the concerned meeting dated 20/3/2002 has has been categorically approved by the Supreme Court. In fact, at the time of final hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not propose to pursue the IA in relation to witnesses other than the first named. 8. IA No.3161/2018 was filed to call upon the Secretary of Malankara Episcopal Synod to produce three documents. It was rejected by the court below on the premise that in the nature of the contentious issues involved in the suit and that the Apex Court, in its judgments including the two referred above, have asserted that Malankara Churches are Episcopal in nature and are to be governed by 1934 Constitution by the Vicar appointed by Metropolitan. Hence, the documents sought for production are not relevant for the adjudication. 9. As mentioned earlier, the issues now to be adjudicated by the court below lies in a very narrow compass, in the light of the Supreme Court judgments. Ext.P6 is the affidavit in support of the application for summoning the four documents mentioned in the petition . The documents are the Minutes of Malankara Synod decision of 22/5/1975, office O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 13 communication dated 24/4/1998 between Catholics and patriarch of Antioch, original communication dated 24/7/1998 by Patriarch to catholics and letter of Patriarch in May 2018 to Catholicos . 10. The affidavit does not disclose as to how the documents are relevant for consideration of the issues that may arise from the rival pleadings set up by the parties. The vague reason stated by the petitioner is that difference in faith between two factions, rejection of faith in Kaiveppu from the Apostolic Throne of St.Peter through the Patriarch and the reason for break down of compromise between two factions can be proved through these documents. It was also stated that it has become necessary to prove that directions by the Apex court in 1995 and 2017 for discussion to bring back peace has been initiated by the spiritual head of the Church. 11. In I.A.No. 3980/2019, the prayer of the petitioners was for a permission to administer interrogatories on the Metropolitan of Cochin Diocese of Malankara Church. It was declined by the court below on a premise that interrogatories were sought in respect of matters which were either affirmed by authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court or were unnecessary for the determination of issues involved in the suit, that it related to matters which do not arise from pleadings of parties, that attempt was to dig out matters which were finally laid to rest and were calculated to protract the trial. O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 14 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below noted that the crux of the contention of the contesting defendant was that, though Church was constituted to maintain supremacy of Patriarch, the factum that plaintiffs have deviated from the same and hence cannot claim any right to have the church administered under 1934 Constitution. Hence, it ought to have appreciated that interrogatories were essential to establish that contention. It was also contended that, the court below, while rejecting the prayer to examine the Metropolitan Bishop, by order in IA No.673/2019 had held that petitioners may resort to method of administering interrogatories. After having permitted him to adopt such method, court was not justified in rejecting it later. The learned counsel relied on the decisions in **P.Balan v. Central Bank of India ( AIR 2000 Ker.24),Bhavana Vidya Mandir v. Shibu(2017 (1) KLT 726), Afroth v. Kuriachan(2019 (2) KLT 117), Job Jose v. Sudharman(2018 (3) KLT 174)** to support his case. 13. Admittedly, the Metropolitan is not a party to the suit. However, the court below, while considering I.A.No.673/2019, had referred to the decision in **R.Venu Gopala Naidu & others v. Venkatarayulu Charties & Others (1989 KHC 785)** to hold that in a suit concerning the trust property filed with leave under section 92 of CPC, parties on either side can be deemed to be representatives of those having affinity to their interest, though they are not eo-nominee parties. Though the request to summon the Metropolitan was rejected on the ground that, summoning a O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 15 party on the opposite side is not possible, still, the Court observed that to serve that end, resort can be adopted to Order XI CPC. 14. However, the above observation by the court below does not take away the duty of the court to examine whether the interrogatories relate to matters that are essential for adjudication of the issues arising in the suit. In Balan's case, it was held that interrogatories should be allowed, whenever it is found that it will help the party in proving his case or destroying the case of adversary. In Bhavans Vidya Mandir's case, the court held that it is not permissible to deliver interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the suit, notwithstanding that, they might be admissible on the oral cross examination of a witness. In Job Jose's case, the court held that, interrogatories could be administered in relation to a question which relates to “matter in questions” and court can consider whether matters sought are relevant. Afroth's case though arises from the present suit, does not relate to the issues considered here. 15. It seems that the attempt of the petitioner is to establish that the plaintiffs have deviated from the object for which Church was constituted. It is a matter to be specifically pleaded and proved. It appear that, interrogatories were sought to challenge the spiritual, ecclesiastical and temporal status of the Metropolitan to appoint vicars. The petitioner has not disclosed the exact aspect that is sought to be established. As indicated above, the power of the Metropolitan, the status in relation to Patriarch and the Malankara Metropolitan have been settled finally. O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 16 Apparently, the points sought to be elicited have no relevance with the issues sought to be answered in the suit. Court below has correctly dealt with this and the finding does not call for any interference. 16. In IA No. 5018/2019, the prayer of defendants 9 and 10 was to issue summons to a witness to produce the notarized copy of the manuscript of 1934 Constitution of Malankara Church. This was declined by the court below. 17. The Secretary of the Malankara Association had deposed that Ext.A1 was the printed copy of the Malankara Association. He had stated that he was the publisher of Ext.A1 and to his knowledge original of 1934 Constitution was submitted in the 1[st] Church Case at Kottayam, as an exhibit. It appears that, in almost all the litigations between two factions, the above Constitution was the subject matter, referred to extensively and discussed elaborately and disputes resolved even by the various Supreme Court judgments. Now at this stage, any question regarding the 1934 Constitution with reference to its original manuscript is unwarranted. It is too late at this length of time, to rake up any dispute by any party on any clause, with reference to its corresponding provision in the original manuscript. 18. The larger issues relating to the reasons for split in the Malankara Sabha, the jural, spiritual, ecclesiastical and temporal status of the patriarch, metropolitan and the vicar the inter se status and relation between them and the manner of administration of Churches have been O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 17 finally set at rest in the historical background of the factional dispute, by the Supreme Court in the two decisions . It is binding on the parties and settled issues cannot be raked up time and again by either parties, in any suit. This has been correctly understood by the court below and the law applied to the facts. I find no reason to interfere in any of the orders impugned. 19. An elaborate discussion leads to the conclusion that none of the impugned orders call for any interference. The impugned orders are to be sustained. The original petitions are without any merit and are liable to be dismissed. All the original petitions are dismissed. **Sd/-** **SUNIL THOMAS** Sbna **JUDGE** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 18 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1483/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.4.2019 IN I.A NO 1750 OF 2010 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO 20/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS 3 TO 7 DATED 4.10.2013 IN IN O.S NO 20/2013** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 5 TO7 IN O.S NO 20/2013** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2018 IN IA NO 3162 OF 2018 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO 3161 OF 2018 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION NO 672 OF 2016 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT, COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.2.2019 IN REVIEW PETITION 672 OF 2019 IN IA NO 3161 OF 2018 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** - **EXHIBIT P9 VTRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.2.2019 IN IA NO 3161 OF 2018 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF IA NO 673 OF 2019 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 19 ## **ERNAKULAM** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO 673 OF 2019 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF IA NO 1750 OF 2019 IN OS NO 20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY PLAINTIFFS TO IA NO 1750 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT BY PETITIONER TO IA NO 1750 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM, DATED 12.7.2018 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.3.2019 IN TR.PC NP 76 OF 2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 23RD MAY, 2019, IN TR.APPEAL(C) NO. 5 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE RP NO.672 OF 2019 IN I.A.NO.3161 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE COURT AFFIDAVIT TO EXHIBIT P-18 FILED BY PETITIONERS IN FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION I.A. NO. 3860 OF 2019, UNDER ORDER XI OF CPC, 1908, IN O.S. NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SAID WITNESS IN O.S. NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 20 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1497/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.2.2019 IN I.A.NO.3161 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.20/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS 3 TO 7 DATED 04.10.2013 IN O.S.NO.20/2013. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 3 TO 7 IN O.S.NO.20/2013. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.11.2018 IN I.A.NO.3162 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3161 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.2.2019 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.672 OF 2019 IN IA NO.3161 OF 2018 IN OS.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.673 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.673 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P13(A) TO TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS O.S. NO.20 F 2013 P13(Z) OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM, FROM 28.1.2019 TO 7.6.2019 DOWNLOADED FROM ECOURT WEBSITE.** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 21 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1980/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** - **COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/07/2019 IN I.A.NO.3850 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.20/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS 3 TO 7 DATED 04/10/2013 IN O.S.NO.20/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 3 TO 7 IN O.S.NO.20/2013 DATED 14/6/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24/11/2018 IN I.A.NO.3162 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF IA.NO.673 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 30/1/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.673 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 1/2/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.3980 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 OF FIRST ADDL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 6/6/2019.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5/PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.NO.20 OF 2013 DATED 22/6/2019.** O.P(C).1483, 1497, 1980 and 2106 of 2019 22 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2106/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.03.2017 IN O.P.NO.537/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON 19.03.2019 IN IA 7268/2018 IN O.S NO.20/2013 OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CHURCH CASES, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ON 21.03.2019 IN IA NO.7268/2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A NO.5018/2019 FILED BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRAIL OF CHURCH CASES, ERNAKULAM.**