IMPORTANT POINT
" No discretion is vested in any of officers of police department, however high he may be, to decide as to which court order shall be enforced and which shall not be- A lawful order passed by a competent court, whether it be by a court of lowest jurisdiction or the highest court in the land, the police is bound to enforce it in accordance with law- Police has no right or authority to sit in appeal on the orders passed by the courts and examine its correctness- It can be decided only by higher courts in the hierarchy- State administration also has a non-negotiable constitutional responsibility to maintain majesty of the rule of law
" Metropolitan of Angamali Diocese of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (in short, Malankara Mere violation of injunction order may not be sufficient to punish a person by invoking the above provision and it must be established that he knowingly and contumaciously violated the injunction order. A decision therefore can be taken only after making an elaborate enquiry. Therefore, the trial court cannot be blamed for not considering the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC along with this petition

This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the 8th defendant in O.S.No.162 of 2018 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the learned Munsiff on I.A.No.2738 of 2018. As per the above application, enforcement of an order of temporary injunction passed on I.A.No.830 of 2018 in the above suit is sought by providing police protection to the plaintiff/1st respondent.

2. 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 7 are the defendants 2 to 7 in the above suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the vicar of the 1st defendant church appointed on 16.08.2017 by the Metropolitan of Angamali Diocese of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (in short, Malankara Church). 1st defendant church, viz., Marthomman Cheriya Palli, Kothamangalam is a constituent parish church of Malankara Church. The church is to be governed by 1934 constitution of Malankara Church. It is the case of the plaintiff that Malankara Churches follow Orthodox Syrian faith from the time of its establishment. Malankara Church was accepting the spiritual leadership of the Catholicos of East. In 1972, the relationship between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Catholicos was strained. Thereafter slew of litigations were fought between the two rival groups in the Malankara Church. The decrees passed by this Court in O.S.No.1 of 1979 and other cases were taken to the Supreme Court and finally in 1995, the Supreme Court decided the cases declaring the law binding on the parish churches in the fold of Malankara Church. Plaintiff contended that recently also the Supreme Court re-affirmed the judgment rendered by it in the year 1995.

3. Defendants 2 to 9 are members of Jacobite faction in the Malankara Church and they functioned under a constitution called “Jacobite Syrian Christian Sabha, 2002”. They are not appointed as per 1934 constitution and they have no right to act as vicars and assistant vicars of the 1st defendant church. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for the following reliefs against defendants:

“(a). Restraining the defendants 2 to 9 and their men or agents from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in discharging duties of parish priest of the 1st defendant-church including conducting Holy Mass and discharging all other religious functions of the 1st defendant-church and its kurisadies cemetery, etc, situated in the plaint schedule properties and restraining the defendants 2 to 6 from acting as the vicar or as the assistant vicars of the 1st defendant-church and restraining the defendants 2 to 9 from bringing Metropolitans and Priests belonging to Patriarch faction in violation of 1934 Constitution in the 1st defendant church.

(d). Allowing cost of this suit to the plaintiff; and

(e). Granting such other relief which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and which may prayed for here after.”

4. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed as I.A.No.830 of 2018 before the court below seeking the following reliefs:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 9 and their men or agents from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in discharging duties of parish priest of the 1st defendant-church including conducting Holy Mass and discharging all other religious functions of the 1st defendant-church and its kurisadies, cemetery, etc, situated in the plaint schedule properties and restraining the defendants 2 to 6 from acting as the vicar or the assistant vicars of the 1st defendant-church and restraining the defendants 2 to 9 from bringing Metropolitans and Priests belonging to Patriarch faction in violation of 1934 Constitution in the 1st defendant-church, till the disposal of the suit.”

In that matter, the court below passed the following order:

“In the result, this petition is allowed in the foll