KOCHITTI CHACKO Vs. MARKOSE KATHANAR AND JOSEPH KATHANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1951 of the Special First Class Magistrates Court, Kottayam, is the Revision Petitioner. The Miscellaneous case is one taken under S.147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dispute relates to the right to officiate in three Churches in Kottayam namely, Cheriapalli, Puthenpalli and Kurisupalli. These three Churches are said to be under the same management. They belong to the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Community. There are now two factions in that community, one called the Patriarchs Party and the other, the Catholicos Party. The Petitioner belongs to the Catholicos Party, while the 1st counter petitioner belongs to the Patriarchs Party. The second counter petitioner is the Malankara Metropolitan belonging to the Patriarchs Party and the 3rd counter petitioner is the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kottayam belonging to that party.

(2.) The petitioners case is that these three Churches belong to the Catholicos Party and that the first counter petitioner was officiating in these Churches as a priest belonging to that party and that he subsequently seceded from that party and went over to the Patriarchs side. When the first counter petitioner attempted to perform services in the Cheriapalli as a priest of the Patriarchs party certain members belonging to the Catholicos' party petitioned the District Magistrate, Kottayam on 13.3.1951 for action being taken against him under S. 142, Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure (S. 144 of the Indian Code). The District Magistrate thereupon passed an order prohibiting the first counter petitioner from entering the Church and performing services there. In the meanwhile certain members of the Patriarchs party complained to the District Magistrate that the members of the Catholicos' party were attempting to instal a priest belonging to that party in the place of the first counter petitioner. The District Magistrate referred the matter to the police and on their report passed an order on 23.3.1951 under S. 31 of the Police Act closing the three churches until further orders, as he was satisfied that the dispute between the two parties regarding the right to perform services in the three churches was likely to cause a breach of the peace. He also directed the local First Class Magistrate to initiate proceedings under S. 145 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to S.147 of the Indian Code. Accordingly proceedings were started under that section by the First Class Magistrate and a preliminary order was passed on 3.4.1951. Proceedings started under S. 144 were accordingly dropped. Four Revision Petitions were filed in the High Court from the orders of the District Magistrate, and of the First Class Magistrate, and the High Court by its order dated 28.4.1951 dismissed those petitions and confirmed the orders of the District Magistrate and the First Class Magistrate.

(3.) Written statements were filed by both parties and one witness was examined in the case. On 14.2.1952 the first counter petitioner filed a petition for dropping the proceedings or for staying the same till the disposal of two civil suits between the parties and relating to the churches in dispute, viz. O.S. No. 82 of 1122 of the Kottayam District Court and O.S. No. 108/51 of the Kottayam Munsiffs Court. The reason given for dropping the proceedings was that the dispute between the parties relating to the right to officiate in the churches has been finally settled by the decision of the Travancore High Court in O.S. No. 111/1113 of the Kottayam District Court which is reported in 1946 T.L.R. 683. In the meanwhile one Philipose Kathanar who belongs to the Catholicos Party filed a petition for getting himself impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Certain other persons also filed similar petitions. The learned First Class Magistrate passed an order on 15.3.1952 relating to all these petitions. The petition of Philipose Kathanar was rejected. Some of the other persons were impleaded, while others were not allowed to be impleaded. With regard to the petition of the 1st counter petitioner the learned Magistrate disallowed the prayer for stay of proceedings till the disposal of the two civil suits. But he dropped the proceedings under S.147 and cancelled the preliminary order. The revision is from that order.