MATHAI ULAHANNAN Vs. FR.SKARIA @ SAKARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos.1 to 14 and 21 in OS.No.7/2013 on the files of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) The defendants say that the order impugned, namely the one issued by the Trial Court in IA.No.805/2013, under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short), permitting the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein to function as a Vicar of the 'Piravom Valiya Palli' is untenable in law since, there is nothing on record to show that he is entitled to do so under the bye-laws applicable to the said Church.

(3.) However, even when I hear Sri.K.J. Kuriachan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on the afore lines, it is now without doubt that, pursuant to the declarations of the Honorable Supreme Court in P.M.A.Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma [AIR 1995 SC 2001] and Varghese v. St.Peter 's and Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church [2017 (3) KLT 261 SC], only a Vicar who has been appointed under the provisions of 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church can be allowed to function in the Church in question, since it is conceded that its constituent.