KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. PAZHUCKAMATTOM DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This unfortunate litigation centres round a temple and a trust. The suit itself was filed for settling a scheme for the management and administration of Pazhukkamattom Devaswom near Chelamattomkara in Perumbavoor which is claimed to be a public trust. The prayers include removal of the 1st defendant from the management of the properties, appointment of new trustees and other incidental reliefs. It was instituted initially in the District Court of Ernakulam where it was numbered as O. S. No. 4 of 1979. Leave to sue under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was obtained from that court by the order passed in I.A. No 443 of 1979. Later the suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Parur, the court which has now passed the order sought to be revised. The suit was renumbered in the Parur Sub Court as p. S. No. 187 of 1980. Against the order granting leave to sue, a revision petition was taken to this court CRP No. 1500 of 1979. It is admitted by both parties that the revision petition was dismissed on 20-6-1979 as it was not pressed. The respondents in the revision plaintiffs would contend that this court was not inclined to admit the civil revision petition and it was in those circumstances that the civil revision petition happened to be not pressed. Whatever that be, the fact remains that the earlier challenge to this court against the order granting leave had been unsuccessful or not pursued. The acrimony between the parties appears to have manifested in diverse forms. It is unfortunate that even counsel had not been spared. However, having regard to the limited question raised in this civil revision petition and argued before me it is unnecessary to refer to those matters.

(2.) The 13th plaintiff filed I.A.No. 189 of 1981 before the court below on 12-2-1981, alleging that he did not sign the vakalath, the plaint or the application for leave to sue. This petition was linked with another interlocutory application, I.A.No. 193(a) of 1981 at the instance of the defendant for a declaration that the suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that the suit as instituted did not have the junction of the 15th plaintiff. During the pendency of this petition yet another change in the attitude of the 13th plaintiff was disclosed by the petition, I.A.No. 273 of 1981 by the plaintiffs praying that the 13th plaintiff may be allowed to withdraw from the suit. It was stated therein that the 13th plaintiff had not signed I.A.No. 181 of 1981. The withdrawal from the suit by the 13th plaintiff was sought on reasons of old age and ill health. The court below refers to that petition in the following terms:

(3.) The withdrawal of the 13th plaintiff from the suit led to the filing of another petition I.A.No. 429 of 1981 invoking S.151, CPC and praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground of its not being maintainable in the light of the withdrawal of the 13th plaintiff from the suit. I. A. No. 451 of 1981 was filed by the 2nd defendant, the wife of the 1st defendant for a similar declaration