Point of Law: Execution of order – Police protection - Once an order is passed by a court of law, that is binding to all concerned, and the District Administration and the police department are duty bound to implement the same.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. Exhibit P3 is an order dated 7.8.2019 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Kottayam. Ext.P5 is an order dated 6.11.2019 directing the District Collector, Kottayam and District Police Chief, Kottayam to afford adequate police protection to implement Ext.P3 order passed by the Munsiff Court. We are celebrating the second anniversary of Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the civil court subject to the final decision of O.S. No. 654 of 2017 pending before the Prl. Munsiff, Kottayam. The suit originated in connection with a rift between two factions of the Christian community and they are generally known as Orthodox and Jacobite. The law enforcing authority is not able to implement an order passed by a competent civil court even after two years. It is nothing but a shame.

PLEADINGS

2. The 7th respondent herein is St. Marthasmooni Church which is a constituent parish church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (hereinafter referred to as Malankara Church) coming within the Kottayam Diocese. According to the petitioner, he is the Vicar of the 7th respondent appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan of the Diocese of Kottayam in accordance with the Malankara Church Constitution of 1934. The case of the petitioner is that respondents No. 8 to 15 are the members of the erstwhile Jacobite/Patriarch Faction, which disassociated with Malankara Church and formed a new Sabha called “Yacobaya Suriyani Christiani Sabha” governed by the 2002 constitution adopted by them on 8.6. 2002. According to the petitioner, respondents No. 8 and 9 holding out to be the priests of the erstwhile Patriarch faction, now priests of 2002 sabha, claiming to be the Vicar and Assistant Vicar of the 7th respondent church. It is submitted by the petitioner that they started to create a parallel administration in the 7th respondent Malankara Church. It is the specific case of the petitioner that they are not priests, either ordained or appointed, in accordance with the Malankara Church Constitution of 1934. The case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 8 to 15 clamour for a different setup and parallel service in the Churches of Malankara Church, especially in the 7th respondent church. A five Judge bench of the apex court in Moran Mar Baselios Catholicos vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira, 1958 KLT 721 held that the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding on all parish churches of the Malankara Church. Thereafter, the apex court in several subsequent decisions declared the validity of 1934 Constitution.

3. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 654 of 2017, which is a suit filed as a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Munsiff Court, Kottayam for a permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent Nos.8 to 13. Ext.P1 in WP (C) No. 14191 of 2021 is the plaint in the above suit. Defendants 1 to 7 in the suit are respondents No. 7 to 13 in these writ petitions. Ext.P2 is the written statement filed by respondent Nos.7, 8, and 10 to 12 in the suit. In Ext.P2 it is contended that the 7th respondent church had adopted the 2002 Constitution and is thus now a constituent of Yacobaya Suriyani Christiani Sabha. In the suit, the petitioner filed I.A No. 3746 of 2017 for a temporary injunction, and the same was allowed as per Ext.P3 order. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 is extracted hereunder:

“15. Point No. 4: In view of the findings in point Nos. 1 to 3, this petition is to be allowed.

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and the counter petitioners two to seven and their men and their agents and supporters and anybody claiming under them who does not abide by 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church or their hierarchies there under are restrained by an order of temporary prohibitory injunction till the disposal of the suit from bringing priests and prelates not appointed under 1934 Constitution to conduct any religious service in the first counter petitioner church, its cemetery, other insti