Re: The Execution Petition - Doubts of a layman
- Dear John,
You have raised some valid questions regarding the execution petition filed by MOSC in HC. I will try to share whatever little I know. It may be lengthy and members who are not interested in church case are advised to skip this posting.
Some History Soon after 74, when the church plunged into utter chaos and confusion, scores of civil cases were filed by MOSC in various courts. These cases were transferred to the 1st additional District Court in ernakulam, which was designated as the Church Court (palli kodathi). Cases proceeded in this court till 79, when it was transferred to the HC, by an order of SC. Cases were renumbered and a single bench was designated as the trial court and judgement came in 80( We won). They went in appeal in division bench and judgement came in 90(They won). We went in appeal in SC and judgement came in 95(nobody won).
The decree of the same was pronounced in 95, later amended in 96 and 97. After the amendment in 97 we approached the single bench of HC for the execution of the same.( Since it was the trial court). The HC found that since the case was originally transferred from the district court to HC for trial, the execution of the decree may be done by the district court and hence transferred the same to district court.
But in that order the HC had made it clear that the then Catholicos of MOSC HH Mathews 2nd is not the legal Malankara Metran and hence is not competent to convene the Malankara association. They went in appeal in SC. The SC in 2001 (probably distressed by the never ending church litigation) decided to execute its own decree(which usually never happens. It's the duty of the trial court to execute the final decree)
This culminated in the parumala association in the presence of the observer appointed by SC in 2002 and later the satisfaction judgement .
Now coming to your questions.
1. When we filed the execution petition before the Hon'ble H C, the Court ordered among others that the E P is to be filed before the Church Court as the original case(s) which culminated in the SC Judgment was/were of the files of the Church Court. Then how can they file the E P before the High Court?
Ans. As far as I know the case presently is in the initial stage. The court may decide to go into this aspect later after checking the maitainabilty of the EP as such.
2. They contested our E P saying that there is nothing to be executed. Is this not an estopal?
Ans. True but if they had stood by the oath they took in front of the Holy Alter the whole church case would not have started right from Vattaserri's time.
3. s it possible to file two different E Ps on a single decree ?
Ans. Please go through the Counter filed by our Bava H B Baselious Thomas 1st which was posted in this forum by Chev Adv P J Philip. (msg 16523) Bava have contested the maintainability of the E P as such. Iam not going into detail,since its in the archives of the forum.
4. The decree says no order as to individual parish churches can be made due to nonjointer of parish churches but the court said that as far as possible the parish churches have to be governed by the orthodox constituion At that time the cases of the Kuruppumpady church was also considered by the Hon'ble SC. The possibility of governing the parish churches by the orthodox contitutin is rendered impossible as a good number of parish churches formed a new association invoking their fundemental rights enshrined in the Constituion of India.
Ans. Here is the crux of the matter. Right from 1995 the only agenda of MOSC was to take control of the parishes by any means. They didn't get that from SC. There is nothing in the judgement or the decree giving title of the Parish churches to the malankara metran or the bishops. The SC left that matter entirely out since the parish churches were not party to the church case, and hence no order binding on the parish churches could be pronounced by the court.
It may be remembered that when the case was heard in the single bench in 79/80 lots of parish churches had come forward with a plea that they also be heard. But the court had assured that the rights of the parish churches will not be decided in this case. That is why the SC didn't give any judgement or decree touching the rights of the parish churches.
But MOSC is trying to take control of the parish churches by devious means. First they tried with the police protection case in 2002. It failed miserably. They tried to muscle three successive governments to use police and civil authorities to capture the parish churches. They failed. Now comes the Execution Petition filed against 6 churches (with a supplimentay list of another 126 churches).
Until and unless the devil shifts residence from devalokam these guys wont let us in peace.
PS.. When you have lost your suitcase there is no point in holding the key. Its better to throw it in the river or sea. But if some people (including vivaramulla bishops) thinks other wise, let the truth enlighten them.
- Respected Gleeson Baby,
Thank you for your kind and prompt response. Your sharp,harsh and witty words they deserve very much and I enjoyed it very much.
I could not see earlier the message of Shev.Adv P J Philip in these columns by oversight and I looked back for the message as per your advice.I have now downloaded the message in full of the able and learned advocate son of our Church(May God bless him aboundently ||) read it, re-read it and want to read it again and again.How beautifully has he prepared the affidavit on behalf of the Malankara Jacobite Burdono||. With your reply and the affidavit my doubts are all cleared and we must turn to the everlasting King of the everlasting House of Jacob (St.Luke 1:33)to shower his everlasting mercy on the persecuted Jacobites.
With prayers good wishes and ofcourse wishing you and every one of our freternity A HAPPY CHRISTMAS AND A PUROSEFUL & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR
V T John