The jurisdiction of civil courts supersedes CrPC provisions concerning possession disputes during ongoing civil litigation.

J U D G M E N T

The 1st petitioner claims to be a constituent parish church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church governed by 1934 Constitution of Malankara Church. The 2nd petitioner is the Vicar of the 1st petitioner church appointed by Exhibit P1 Kalpana on 20.10.1974. There were disputes between the two factions in the Church. The 1st respondent had initiated M.C.No.23 of 1974 and on 19.06.1974 a preliminary order was passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), invoking the jurisdiction under Section 146 (1) of the Code, directing attachment and entrustment of the church building and property to the 2nd respondent as Receiver. The 2nd respondent was directed to take charge of the church, keep it closed, locked and sealed. The Patriarch faction in the 1st petitioner church was A party and the Orthodox faction was the B party in M.C.No.23 of 1974. Possession was taken by the 2nd respondent as per Mahazar prepared on 20.10.1974. However, but both the factions were permitted to conduct religious services on different timings on all Sundays and other important dates of religious importance. Separate time schedules were allowed to both factions for conducting services, annual festivals and so on.

2. O.S.No.217 of 1985 was filed before the Sub Court, Thrissur by some of the parishioners of the 1st petitioner church seeking a decree of declaration that the church is to be governed and administered under the 1934 Constitution of Malankara Church and for other reliefs. The suit was withdrawn and transferred to the 1st Additional District Court, Ernakulam and re- numbered as O.S.No.18 of 1986. By judgment and decree dated 11.10.2010, the suit was dismissed finding that the suit is in respect of administration of a public religious trust and had been instituted without obtaining leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence not maintainable. R.F.A.No.782 of 2010 was filed before this Court. By judgment dated 17.6.2015, this Court agreed with the findings of the District Court and dismissed the appeal. On 30.06.2015, a few of the parishioners of the 1st petitioner church filed O.P.No.335 of 2015 before the District Court, Thrissur under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure for leave to institute a suit in respect of the church. The 2nd petitioner was the 2nd respondent in the above said original petition.

3. On 07.08.2015, the 2nd petitioner was served with an order of even dated, issued by the 1st respondent, intimating that it has been decided to lift the attachment and hand over possession of the church and its properties to the A party, Patriarch faction. The order purports to have been passed under Section 145 (6) and refers to a legal opinion from the District Government Pleader. It is stated that on 08.08.2015, when the 2nd petitioner Vicar and the faithful went to the church and were conducting prayers, they were forcibly removed. Crime No.662 of 2015 was registered and they were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The 2nd petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.1002 of 2015 before this Court challenging the above order. The revision petition was allowed by this Court by Exhibit P2 judgment dated 30.11.2015. This Court considered the nature of the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inJhummamal v. State of M.P. reported in[ (1988) 4 SCC 452 ], Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand reported in[ (2013) 3 SCC 366 ] and the decision of this Court inShameel N.A. and another v. Muhammed Ansari and others reported in [2014(4) KHC 217] and held that the proceedings could culminate only of a finding of the civil court regarding the right of the person entitled to hold possession or the SDM determining the person holding possession on the relevant date or on a finding that breach of peace no longer exists. This Court found that no decisio