SUNDARA DHAS Vs. R.C. BISHOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, in E.P.No.6 of 2012 in O.S.No.442 of 2002, dtd. 4/10/2016.

(2.) The petitioner claiming to be the President of Hindu Dharma Vidya Peedam filed the above suit in O.S.No.442 of 2002, before the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents 1 and 2. The suit was decreed on 3/3/2005, forbearing the respondents from constructing a Church in the suit schedule property, without obtaining prior permission from the District Collector concerned. The respondents have not filed any appeal as against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.442 of 2002, dtd. 3/3/2005 and the same becomes final. With a relief of removing the Church constructed in the suit schedule property, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in E.P.No.6 of 2012, under Order XXI, Rule 35 and 36 of Civil Procedure Code, that the respondents had illegally constructed the Church in the suit schedule property, in violation of the Decree and in disobedience of the order of the Court. The Executing Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents constructed the Church after passing of the decree in O.S.No.442 of 2002. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) When this Civil Revision Petition was taken up for hearing on 8/7/2022, 13/7/2022, 28/7/2022, 4/8/2022, 5/8/2022, it was adjourned periodically at request of either side counsel for one reason or another. On 11/8/2022, when this Civil Revision Petition was again taken up for hearing, Mr.N.GA.Natraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the matter has become infructuous. When this Court has sought for an explanation how the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 is pleading that the issue has become infructuous, the learned counsel sought time and thereafter reported that he is not having any instructions and hence he is going to withdraw the Vakalat. However, he has not filed any memo to that effect. Though the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the memo was filed on 4/8/2022, it was filed only on 12/8/2022. On 18/8/2022, Mr.Xavier Rajini, learned counsel reported that he is filing Vakalat for the respondents 1 and 2 and requested for short accommodation and at his request, it was adjourned to 22/8/2022. On the next date of hearing, Mr.Xavier Rajini, the learned counsel reported that the first respondent Diocese is now bifurcated and the then Paris Priest of the Church is now transferred and at present one Francis Jeffry, another Paris Priest is looking after the Church and he has to file necessary application to substitute the said Francis Jeffry in the place of the then Paris Priest. Since this Court feels that the conduct of the respondents in taking several adjournments in short span of time and changing counsels appears to be the delay tactics, this Court directed the Registry to receive Vakalat filed on behalf of the second respondent and also directed the Registry to print the name of the counsel Mr.Xavier Rajini and the name of the first respondent in the cause list, by order dtd. 23/8/2022. It was once again adjourned to 25/8/2022. On that day, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent sought for an adjournment that the copy of the Judgment and Decree is not available with him. At his request, this petition was ordered to be posted on 30/8/2022.