ASHA Vs. SAUDAMAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Original Petitions are in challenge of Exts.P3 and P5, order dated October 29, 2010 on I.A.No.67 of 2010 in O.S.No.796 of 1996 (the same order marked in the respective petitions) whereby learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct election to the managing committee of the Trust which owns the temple and its properties.

(2.) IN O.S.No.796 of 1996 a scheme was framed for administration of the Kuthiranmala Sridharmasastha Temple and its properties. As per the said scheme election is to be conducted after specific intervals as directed in the scheme. It is stated that petitioners in O.P.(C) No.751 of 2010 were elected as office bearers of the trust and their term expired by December, 2010. Consequent to that, fresh election was to be conducted. It is while so that I.A.No.67 of 2010 was filed in O.S.No.796 of 1996 alleging that petitioners in O.P.(C) No.751 of 2010 are indulging in mis-management of the trust properties and are not taking steps to conduct fresh elections. On that application learned Principal Sub Judge as per order dated October 29, 2010 ordered election and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the election. (Ext.P5 in O.P(C) No.751 of 2010 and Ext.P3 in O.P.(C) No.722 of 2010) IN the meantime, one Asha (petitioner in O.P.No.722 of 2010) filed O.S.No. 632 of 2009 in the court of learned First Additional Munsiff, Thrissur for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain conduct of election (in accordance with the scheme framed in O.S.No.796 of 1996) without her also being included in the trust. As per Ext.P1, order (in both petitions) dated March 12, 2009 on I.A.No.2044 of 2009 in O.S.No.632 of 2009 learned First Additional Munsiff granted an interim order which was extended by Ext.P2, order dated March 19, 2009. (I am told that O.S.No.632 of 2009 ended in dismissal for default and the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.722 of 2010 has filed an application for restoration of the suit which is pending consideration).

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondents in both the Original Petitions contend that attempt of petitioners in O.P.(C) No.751 of 2010 ably assisted by the persons who instituted the suits subsequently is to somehow cling on to their office in spite of the fact that the term of their office expired by December, 2010. LEARNED Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.(C) No.722 of 2010 has pointed out the circumstances under which learned Principal Sub Judge passed the order dated October 29, 2010 on I.A.No.67 of 2010 (in O.S.No.796 of 1996). It is pointed out that in spite of the term of office expiring, persons now in office have not taken any steps to conduct the election. It is also pointed out that though it was contended before the learned Principal Sub Judge that in O.S.Nos.632 of 2009 and 1534 of 2008 orders of injunction against conduct of election were passed, no document was produced before learned Principal Sub Judge to substantiate that contention. Certain other contentions were also raised before learned Principal Sub Judge which were dispelled. Accordingly it was directed that Advocate P.K.Suresh Babu is appointed to convene the general body and elect office bearers as per the scheme. Petitioners in I.A.No.67 of 2010 were directed to deposit `3,500/- towards the batta for the Advocate Commissioner which, it was observed could be reimbursed from the temple committee later. There was a direction to the present temple administrative committee to meet the election expenses.