Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30091
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
KANAKKUR SRI. DHANVANTHARI MURTHI TEMPLE, – Appellant
Versus
KANAKKUR SRI. DHANVANTHARI TEMPLE DEVAWOM , – Respondent
OP(C) 462 2023
B.PRAMOD, BIJU VIGNESWAR AYYAPPADAS, R.REJI, M.V.THAMBAN(T-12), THARA THAMBAN(T-209), B.BIPIN(K/297/2007), ARUN BOSE(K/140/2013)
Devotees of a Temple can represent its interests in court and seek necessary investigations into mismanagement.
Headnote:
Locus Standi - Temple Management - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 1 Rule 8 - The court held that the petitioners, as devotees of the Temple, had the right to seek an advocate commissioner for audit purposes despite the initial dismissal, emphasizing the need for proper adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to recover lost assets from a Temple due to alleged mismanagement and filed for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which was opposed and dismissed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the dismissal erroneous, ruling that it was premature to decide on the locus-standi without fully considering the petitioners' status as devotees and the need for proper fact-finding.
Issues: Whether the petitioners had locus-standi to represent the Temple and seek an Advocate Commissioner for the necessary inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the petitioners, having obtained permission under Order 1 Rule 8 to represent similar interests, had standing to pursue the application.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, directing the court below to reconsider the application properly.
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order passed in I.A.No.2/2022 in O.S.No.870/2022 by the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit.
2. The relevant background facts leading to Ext.P4 order, are:-
(i) The petitioners have filed the suit against the respondents, inter alia, to recover the lost assets of the Kanakkur Sree Dhanvanthari Murthi Temple, Aryad. (ii) The petitioners’ case is that, the Temple belongs to “ Vypin Mana” and the deity is represented by the devotees of the Temple, who are also the members of the second respondent - NSS Karayogam. There is gross mis-
management and rampant corruption in the administration of the Temple. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to recover the loss from the persons at the helm of affairs.
(iii) The petitioners have asserted that, for the proper adjudication of the suit, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to elucidate certain matters. Accordingly, they filed I.A. No.2/2022 (Ext.P2) to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The application was opposed by the second respondent through Ext.P3 objection.
(iv) The court below, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, has dismissed Ext.P2 application.
(v) Ext.P4 order is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.R. Reji, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Service is complete on the others.
4. The point is, whether there is any error in Ext.P4 order.
5. Ext.P1 plaint has been instituted by the petitioners having the same interest, after obtaining permission from the court below under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘Code’), to protect the interest of the deity of the Temple. The petitioners claim that they are devotees of the Temple and have the right to protect the deity.
6. The petitioners have alleged that there is gross mis-management and rampant corruption in the affairs of the Temple. They have further alleged that the accounts of the first respondent Devaswom have not been audited. In order to substantiate their assertions, they desired to get an Advocate Commissioner appointed.
7. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in Ext.P2 application and contended that the petitioners have no locus-standi to represent the deity.
8. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, accepted the objections of the second respondent and rejected Ext.P2 application, holding that as the Temple is a private Temple, the petitioners have no locus-standi to represent the Temple.
9. This Court finds the impugned order to be erroneous and untenable for more reasons than one.
10. Admittedly, the suit is filed after obtaining permission from the court below under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code, to permit the petitioners – the persons of same interest - to sue on behalf of the deity. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioners are the devotees of the Temple. It was premature and erroneous for the court below to have decided the locus-standi of the petitioners, that too on the basis of a counter affidavit filed to a commission application.
11. Now, the respondents have contended before this Court that most of the documents sought for in Ext.P2 application are not available and the books of account are with the auditor of the Temple as evidenced by Ext.R1(a) certificate.
12. Indisputably, the said contentions were not raised before the court below and the same was not reflected in the impugned order.
13. In the above background, without expressing anything on the merits of the application, this Court is of the view that the court below is to be directed to re- consider Ext.P2 application, after adverting to the contentions raised by both sides, which would do complete justice to both sides.
Resultantly, in exercise of the supervisory powers of this Court under
