GEORGE MANJAKKAL Vs. BIJU UTHUP, S/O UTHUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitioners are the appellants in R.S.A No.64 of 2017 on the files of this Court. The aforesaid Regular Second Appeal was filed, challenging the judgment and decree, passed in A.S.No.244 of 2004 of the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam, whereby the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.923 of 1989 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam were confirmed. At the time of admission of the above Regular Second Appeal, this Court denied admission on the ground that the Regular Second Appeal does not involve any question of law, as contemplated under Section 100 of the C.P.C. In the impugned judgment, this Court affirmed all the concurrent findings of the courts below as such, without any interference, and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) This review petition is filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, according to the review petitioners, this Court has gone beyond the scope and extent of consideration in a simple suit, for mandatory injunction and made certain observations, affecting the entire members of the Knanaya community in a suit, wherein, no publication was made under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C and the Church was not made a party. It is further contended that from paragraph 39 onwards, this Court has considered the sustainability of the existence, practice and custom of "endogamy", and the findings thereon have adversely affected the church and the faith of the parishioners, as a whole. Those adverse findings and observations, which are detrimental to their belief, are made without hearing any of the affected parties. This court, as well as the courts below, should not have gone into the question of "endogamy" in the suit, particularly when the suit was one for a mandatory injunction against vicars only and neither the church nor the parishioners were made a party to the suit.

(3.) Secondly, during the pendency of the first appeal before the District Court, the review petitioners have filed I.A.No.396 of 1991, along with certain documents, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to establish the contention that the relief prayed for in the suit has become infructuous, as the marriage of the 1st respondent was solemnized in another church. But the said application was not considered or disposed of, before passing of the judgment in the said appeal, by the District Court. But, the nonconsideration of the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, and the consequence thereof, was not considered in the impugned judgment passed in the appeal.