FR.BIJU VARKEY Vs. FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions are preferred seeking review of the judgment of this court in W.P.(C)No.25089 of 2019 dated 03.12.2019. Among the review petitions, R.P.No.41 of 2020 is preferred by respondents 5 and 9 in the writ petition, R.P.No.96 of 2020 is preferred by respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition, and R.P.No.115 of 2020 is preferred by a third party. As the review petitions arise from the very same judgment, they are disposed of by this common order. The parties are referred to in the order unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in the writ petition.

(2.) Marthoman Cheriyapalli, Kothamangalam (the Church) is a constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. There is a dispute in the Church between two factions of the parishioners namely Patriarch faction and Orthodox faction. According to the Patriarch faction, the Church has to be administered in accordance with the Constitution of the Jacobite Syrian Church Sabha and according to the Orthodox faction, the Church has to be administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The petitioner is the Vicar of the Church appointed in terms of 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the parishioners belonging to Patriarch faction, on account of the factional dispute, did not permit him to enter the Church for performing religious ceremonies. The petitioner, therefore, instituted O.S.No.162 of 2018 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein, in a representative capacity, from preventing the petitioner from performing religious ceremonies in the church and also restraining a few priests belonging to Patriarch faction from entering the Church. In the suit, the petitioner preferred I.A.No.830 of 2018 for an order of temporary injunction in tune with the reliefs sought in the suit and in terms of Ext.P1 order, the court restrained defendants 2 to 9 and their men and agents from causing any obstruction to the petitioner in the matter of discharging his duties and functions as the Vicar of the Church. The court also restrained defendants 1 to 5 therein, in terms of the said order, from acting as vicars/assistant vicars of the Church till the disposal of the suit. Ext.P1 order has become final. The suit is still pending.

(3.) Since the defendants in the suit did not obey Ext.P1 order of injunction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2738 of 2018 seeking appropriate directions to the police for enforcing Ext.P1 order of injunction. In terms of Ext.P2 order, the trial court allowed I.A.No.2738 of 2018 and directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha to provide police assistance to the petitioner for preventing violation of Ext.P1 order of injunction. Ext.P2 order was challenged by the defendants in the suit, in O.P.(C) No.3147 of 2018 before this court and in terms of Ext.P3 order, this court affirmed Ext.P2 order.