Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Puthencruz and Kandanad Judgments

Expand Messages
  • Fr. Jose Thomas
    Sub: Puthencruz and Kandanad Judgments Posted by: Fr. Jose Thomas Poovathumkal Much has been talked about these two judgments which went against MOSC. While
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Sub: Puthencruz and Kandanad Judgments
      Posted by: Fr. Jose Thomas Poovathumkal

      Much has been talked about these two judgments which went against
      MOSC. While dealing with legal matters, it is quite natural that
      occasionally decisions of judges may go against us. On such occasions
      we have to learn from mistakes and correct ourselves. We should not
      get desperate. Having said this let me try to explain the
      complications related with CPC 92(1). This point has been raised by
      the patriarch’s group recently. When they raised it, our own advocates
      – who are very efficient and who have fought well in court to get
      positive results – were of differing opinions. Some said it will be
      applicable and others said it can be overlooked. We were not sure
      which direction the judges were going to take. As the advocates were
      confident, we entrusted the matter to them. It should be noted that
      section 92 was a point raised by the Patriarch’s group in order to
      delay the progress of all our suites. So naturally the church was
      always trying to avoid this complication.
      An initial judgment on the applicability of CPC 92 in our church cases
      was pronounced two years ago regarding Nechoor church. The verdict was
      against us. The judges concluded that section 92 is applicable to the
      MOSC church suites. We consulted some eminent lawyers in this issue at
      the Supreme Court level. We consulted Adv. F.S. Nariman himself who is
      confident to get a verdict in our favor from the Supreme Court. So
      appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court regarding the applicability
      of CPC 92 in our church cases. Adv. Nariman himself appeared for us in
      court when the appeal was received in file. The appeal is pending. The
      church authorities have consulted high ranking advocates in this
      issue.
      The problem with CPC 92 is that some advocates do not know deeply
      about the manner in which it has to be dealt with. This is what
      happened in Kandand. When we approached the Munsiff’s court for a
      prior permission, even the Munsiff did not know that he was not
      authorized to grant a prior permission according to CPC 92. The
      Munsiff granted the permission and our advocate, again a person who
      has been practicing since years, thought that it was OK. But later we
      had to withdraw the case and file a new one in the District court. The
      permission was rejected by the District court only on the ground that
      the time limit of three years from the cause of action has expired.
      Once again our advocates are confident to a get a verdict from the
      high court in our favour.
      In the case of Puthencruz church, the suite has been filed quite early
      when the question of section 92 has not yet been raised. We continued
      with the early suite in order to gain time. But the verdict went
      against us. Let us hope that the church leadership will make the best
      efforts solve the problem.

      --
      Fr Jose Thomas Poovathumkal
      Mulakulam North, Piravom, Kerala, India - 686 664.
      http://poovathumkalachen.blogspot.com/
      Ph: +91 485 2241131 (Res) +91 9496178597 (Cell)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.