[ad_1]
Dated this the 03rd day of June, 2025
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 28.02.2024 in
I.A.No.7 of 2023 in O.S.No.100 of 1999 of the Subordinate Judge’s
Court, Attingal. Appellant was the petitioner/applicant in the I.A. and
the 6th additional plaintiff in the suit. Respondents are the counter
petitioners 1 to 5 in the I.A. and defendants in the suit.
2. I.A.No.7 of 2023 was filed by the appellant invoking
Order 40 Rule 1 CPC seeking to appoint a receiver. The suit was
filed in the year 1999 seeking declaratory relief concerning the
Thrikkadavinkara Bhagavathy Temple, Ayiroor Village, Kollam
District. A decree had been rendered in the suit earlier, which was
based on concessions made by some of the parties. The appellant
had challenged the decree before this Court and this Court had set
aside the same, holding that the decree does not meet the
mandates of Order 1 Rule 8 (4) CPC and had remanded the matter
2025:KER:38637
back to the Sub Court, allowing the appellant to implead himself as a
party. Thereafter, the appellant, who had initially impleaded himself
as an additional defendant, transposed himself as additional plaintiff
No.6. The appellant had thereafter filed I.A.No.7 of 2023, inter alia,
contending that the administration of the temple was not going on
well, due to the poor management. For several years, there had
been no effective accounting of the income and expenditure of the
temple, offerings and other valuables. Though a committee had
been there for namesake, there had been no meeting of the
committee to discuss the management and affairs of the temple and
its properties. Even the advice of the Chief Priest (Thanthri) and
Main Poojari (Melshanthi) was not heeded by the present committee
members and this was against the custom and rituals of the temple.
The temple committee used to collect huge amounts from the public
in the guise of celebrations in the temple, but there has been no
accounting of the amounts so collected by the committee. Poojas
had allegedly been thwarted by the committee members for their
benefit and the properties of the temple were not being properly
2025:KER:38637
managed and were on the verge of peril. Thus the appellant sought
to remove the present committee members from the administration
of the temple and to appoint a receiver for the proper management,
protection, preservation and improvement of the temple, otherwise,
the present committee members will cause irreparable mischief to
the temple and its properties. The said I.A. was dismissed by the
Sub Court, inter alia, holding that it had been filed without averring
any specific instances that would justify the appointment of a
receiver which is a drastic remedy and that the appellant had failed
to apprise the court that he had any bona fides. This FAO is filed
challenging the said order.
[ad_2]
Source link