OP(C).1702/2020

_**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943** **OP(C) NO. 1702 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 500/2019 OF MUNSIFF** ## **COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ANIL GEORGE AGED 53 YEARS S/O.N.GEORGE,M EDAPPALAKKATTU HOUSE, PIRAMADOM P.O., PAMPAKUDA VIA, PIN-686 667. BY ADVS. K.C.ELDHO SRI.MALLENATHAN.M. SMT.KRISHNA SANTHOSH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 FR. JOHN V. JOHN AGED 56 YEARS S/O.JOHN MATHEW, RESIDING AT VADAKKEMUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA P.O., ONAKKUR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, KOOTHATTUKULAM, PIN-686 667. 2 FR.SIBI MATHEW VARGHESE, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.M.M.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT TRINITY RETIREMENT HOUSE, PASSIONAGE, KOLENCHERY, PIN-682 311. 3 FR.REJI PAUL, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.PAUL, RESIDING AT VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, PANCODE KARA, IYKARANADU VILLAGE, PANCODE P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-686 667. 4 BABY VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT KANNEKATTU HOUSE, MEMURY KARA, MEMURY VILLAGE, _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 2 PAMPAKUDA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 667. 5 BABY VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT KANNEKATTU HOUSE, MEMURY KARA, MEMURY VILLAGE, PAMPAKUDA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 667. 6 ABRAHAM.K.V. AGED 67 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, KANNEKKATTU HOUSE, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 7 JOY.M.A. AGED 62 YEARS S/O.ULAHANNAN, MEPPARAMBATHU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 8 ELIAS.A.K. AGED 48 YEARS S/O.ULAHANNAN, MEPPARAMBATHU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 9 GIRI CHERIAN, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.CHERIAN, VETTIKKATHADATHIL HOUSE, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 10 PAUL MATHEW, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.BABY K.PAUL, KIZHAKKEDATU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 667. 11 BINU ABRAHAM, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM.K.P., KANNEKATTU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 667. 12 BABY PAULOSE, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.PAULOSE, KURUTTAMPURATHU HOUSE, NORTH PIRAMADAM POST, PAMPAKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 667. 13 ROY.K.C., AGED 56 YEARS S/O.K.P.CHACKO, KADUVAKKATTU HOUSE, NORTH PIRAMADAM POST, PAMPAKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 667. _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 3 BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S. SMT.HANI P.NAIR SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2021, THE COURT ON 03.01.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 4 ## **V.G.ARUN, J. ----------------------------------------------O.P(C).No. 1702 of 2020 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of January, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the additional 4[th] defendant in O.S.No.500 of 2019 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The suit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from causing obstruction to the plaintiffs in discharging their duties as Vicar and Assistant Vicar of the St.John's Orthodox Syrian Church, Piramadom, including the conduct of Holy Mass and discharge of other religious functions in the Church, its Kurisadies, Cemetery etc. The further prayer is to restrain the 1[st] defendant from acting as Vicar of the Church and from doing any religious ceremonies in the plaint schedule property. As per the averments in the plaint, the St.John's Orthodox Syrian Church, Piramadom is a constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, governed by the 1934 constitution. By the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**K.S.Varghese and Others v. Saint Peters and Pauls Syrian Church and Others**_ [(2017) 15 SCC 333], the Malankara Church is _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 5 held to be Episcopal in character, to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution and the Constitution, to fully govern the affairs of Parish Churches. The plaintiffs are appointed as Vicar and Assistant Vicar of the Church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. The defendants are members of the Jacobite faction, functioning as per the Jacobite Syrian Christian Sabha, 2002 Constitution and the 1[st] defendant, as the Vicar of the Church. Being the duly appointed Vicar and Assistant Vicar, plaintiffs requested the defendants to hand over the keys of the Church and to refrain from conducting religious ceremonies. The defendants refused to accede to the request and took steps to obstruct the plaintiffs from conducting religious ceremonies. 2. In their written statement, the defendants contended that neither plaint schedule Church nor the Parish is one coming under the 1934 Constitution. That the affairs of the Church is managed in accordance with the bye-laws accepted by the pothuyogam and the plaintiffs have no right to officiate as priests. 3. After the pleadings were completed, petitioner filed Exhibit P6 application seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs objected, contending that the proposed interrogatories are irrelevant insofar as the issues in the suit are concerned and are unrelated to the matters in dispute. By Exhibit _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 6 P8 order, trial court dismissed the application finding the interrogatories to be unnecessary since most of the questions are settled by the decision in _**K.S.Varghese**_ (supra) and the rest, irrelevant for deciding the matter in dispute. Hence, this original petition. 4. Heard Advocate K.C.Eldho for the petitioner and Advocate Martin Jose for the respondents. 5. Assailing Exhibit P8, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is bad for non-application of mind. Further, the finding that most of the interrogators are covered by the decision in _**K.S.Varghese**_ (supra) is patently wrong. The refusal to grant leave causes substantial prejudice to the petitioner and as held in _**P.Balan v. Central Bank of India**_ [AIR 2000 Ker. 24], as a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed whenever the answer to them will serve, either to help the party in proving his case or to destroy the case of the adversary. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if liberal approach is to be adopted, that cannot be stretched to the extent of permitting irrelevant and mischievous questions being raised. The interrogatories must have reasonable connection with the matters in dispute, which, so far as the interrogatories _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 7 raised by the petitioner are concerned, is completely absent. 7. The short question to be decided is whether the impugned order warrants interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that supervisory power is to be exercised only for keeping the lower courts and Tribunals within their bounds and not to correct errors. A reading of Exhibit P8 order shows that the trial court, after careful analysis, found query Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 to be with respect to the Patriarch of Antioch and the 1934 Constitution, the answers to which are settled by the decision in _**K.S.Varghese**_ (supra) and query Nos.5, 6 and 13, to be with respect to the salary of the 1[st] and 2[nd] plaintiffs and matters relating to their membership in the Church, the aswers to which are absolutely unnecessary for settling the dispute. The correctness or otherwise of the above factual findings cannot be determined in an original petition filed under Article 227. The same view was espoused by this Court in _**Job Jose v. Sudharman**_ [2018 3 KLT 174] by holding the the restriction regarding an interrogatory is that it must relate to any matter in question in the suit. In _**Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin**_ [(2012) 8 SCC 148] the expression “matter” was explained to be a question or issue in dispute in the action and not the thing about which such dispute arises. _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 8 8. The main purpose of raising interrogatories is to enable a party to obtain information from his adversary, as to facts which relate to the matters in question. This helps in reducing the burden of proving the facts which are within the special knowledge of the adversary. Even then, the power to order interrogatories to be served and to answer should be used with considerable care and caution, so that it is not abused by any party. As evident from the second proviso to Order XI Rule 1, interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness. Further, order XI Rule 2 obliges the court to grant leave for only such of the interrogatories which the court considers necessary either for fair disposal of the suit or for reducing costs. Even though in _**P.Balan** (supra)_ _**,**_ this Court has observed that the power to issue interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow limits, the said observation comes with a caveat that the power should be used only if the questions are relevant. In _**Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi**_ [(1972) 3 SCC 850] also it is held as under; _“Questions that may be relevant during crossexamination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The only questions that are relevant as interrogatories are those relating to 'any matters in question'. The_ _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 9 _interrogatories served must have reasonably close connection with the matters in question.”_ 9. Here, the court found the interrogatories proposed to be delivered by the petitioner to be matters unrelated to the question in the suit. Having considered all aspects, I find no reason to hold otherwise. In the result, the original petition is dismissed. **Sd/V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** _vgs_ _**OP(C).1702/2020**_ 10 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1702/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.500 OF 2019 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. - EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT - FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 SUIT. - EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT DTED 14.02.2020. - EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT DATED 27.10.2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.7115-7116/2019. - EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE OF SECOND COMMISSION REPORT IN EXHIBIT P1 SUIT. - EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF IA NO.4/2020 IN OA NO.500/2016 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. - EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN EXHIBIT P6 PETITION. - EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EXHIBIT P6 IA NO.4/2020 DATED 01.11.2020. - EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4912-4913 OF 2011, RAMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS VS NIRMALA DEVI AND ORS. - EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT A SHANMUGAM VS. ARIYA RAJUKALA VAMSATHU MADALAYA NANDHAVANA PARIPALANAI SANGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND ORS AIR2012 SC2010 - EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BALAN VS CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA (199(3)KLTSC76)