The 1st and 2nd respondents in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff's Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna have filed this writ petition to issue a writ, order or direction to the court below to consider the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue before the trial of the case, quashing Ext.P7 order passed by that court. Ext.P7 order was passed in an interlocutory application moved by these petitioners as I.A.No.188 of 2008 requesting the court to consider the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue, which after hearing both sides, was dismissed by order dated 21.6.2008.

2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be summed up thus: The above suit O.S.No.9 of 2007 was instituted by the 1st respondent, who claimed to be an ardent devotee of Lord Guruvayurappan, challenging the authority of the 3rd respondent to organise the Poonthanam Sahityolsavam in the plaint property, Poonthanam Illom and its premises, and also questioning the permission given to that committee to organise such a function by the 1st and 2nd defendants, the petitioners in the writ petition. The controversy involved in the suit related to the conducting of Poonthanam Sahityolsavam by the 3rd defendant, the committee, in the plaint property as recognised by the 1st and 2nd defendants, Guruvayur Devaswom and its Chairman.

3. After the presentation of the suit, conflicting and divergent stand was taken by the 1st and 2nd defendants to the suit claim. With the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application for interim injunction to restrain the 1st and 2nd defendants from transferring the right to conduct and organize Sahityolsavam in the plaint property to the 3rd defendant or any other person, otherwise than organising of such functions directly by the Guruvayur Devaswom. Ext.P1 is the copy of the application. The 1st respondent filed objections to that application, in which, among other contentions, the maintainability of the suit and the application was also questioned contending that it is barred by the Guruvayur Dewaswom Act and Rules. Ext.P2 is the copy of that objection. While Ext.P1 application for injunction was pending consideration, the 1st defendant, Guruvayur Dewaswom filed a statement of undertaking before the court that the Sahityolsavam and all functions connected with Poonthanam Illom will be exclusively conducted by the Dewaswom directly. Recording that statement of undertaking, the 1st defendant requested for closing the further proceedings in the interlocutory application. In the statement of undertaking, it was further stated that the Guruvayur Dewaswom Managing Committee, after deliberation, took the decision to conduct the festivals in Poonthanam Illom directly to secure communal harmony and also to respect the sentiments of the Poonthanam devotees. Ext.P3 is the copy of that statement of undertaking. Evidently, in view of the undertaking given, further proceedings in Ext.P1 interlocutory application for injunction were not pursued. Subsequently, the counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd defendants filed a statement before the court requesting for disposing the suit on the basis of the statement furnished to the interlocutory application for injunction stating that the defendants had no further statement to the suit claim. However, later the defendants filed a written statement with a petition to receive that statement, resisting the suit claim raising various contentions including the challenge against the maintainability of the suit. While the acceptance of the written statement, which was filed beyond the time fixed, was pending enquiry, the defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint statement stating that the contentions taken in the written statement were against the instructions given by the Guruvayur Dewaswom, and as such, they were not willing to own the contradictory contentions of the written statement which were against the statement earlier made to the I.A. for injunction. Ext.P5 is