V.R.KRISHNA IYER,J. - (1.) THE Malankara Sabha, on the Kerala Coast, is an ancient Church with a legendary past, and has a phenomenal following of a million and a half orthodox Syrian Christians with over a thousand parish churches to nourish the spiritual life of the flock. Schismatic pathology which ordinarily afflicts secular institutions struck this ecclesiastical organisation resulting inter alia in bitter litigative battles of several years' standing. Some 250 suits manifesting this litigious syndrome, are stated to be pending in the several courts of Kerala The members of this church are not new to forensic struggles and have, on earlier occasions, fought right up to the Supreme Court. The prolongation of such a plurality of court cases in a community at once influential, important and numerous, has many deleterious social consequences and it was wise of the High Court and the Government of Kerala to have thought in terms of selecting eight of the most significant suits of the spate of cases and constituting an 'Additional District Court' specially for disposal of these socially sensitive cases. Thanks to this imaginative measure the eight suits which were made over to the specially appointed District Judge made headway steadily forwards. An Additional District Judge, by name, Shri N. Viswanath Iyer was first put in charge of these suits and he examined several witnesses. When he was transferred ((THELAW)) 2009 KLT INFOTECH VerDIS ® Page 2 of 61980 KLT 1 (SC) from Ernakulam, which is the venue of the District Court, another judicial officer by name, Shri S. Ananthasubramanian was posted in his place. The latter kept up the progress of the case and actually finished recording the entire evidence. Hardly had the arguments commenced when an application for transfer was made to the High Court under S.24 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code praying for making over the suits to some other court for disposal. Certain aspersions suggestive of bias were made therein but the High Court (Mr. Justice Bhaskaran) eventually and rightly dismissed the petition. A petition to appeal by special leave was filed to this Court but, after making some submissions, counsel withdrew that petition when we indicated our reaction. Another petition had been filed under S.24 (1)(b) of the Code for withdrawal of the suits to the file of the High Court, which was heard by another Judge of the High Court (Mr. Justice Khalid). The learned Judge dismissed that petition, and against that order the present petition for special leave has been moved.
(2.) . We are deeply disturbed that an important community in the State of Kerala should be locked in litigation for long years and if amity can be restored by an end of the crop of cases which drive a wedge between sections of the same community it is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But all that courts can do is to adjudicate cases with the utmost speed and that has apparently been attempted successfully in the present instance. The short point is whether, at this stage and in these circumstances, the eight suits concerned should be called up to the High Court and disposed of. . The learned Judge considered the various grounds urged before him for withdrawal of the suits to the High Court and was unimpressed by them. Merely because a considerable section of the public was tensely interested in these litigations the court was not prepared to withdraw them to the High Court nor was the circumstance that important and intricate questions of law were involved sufficient for such transfer in its view. A massive volume of oral evidence had been recorded by the specially appointed Judge and so the High Court felt that it would be "proper for the court that recorded the evidence to bear the arguments also." We are not inclined to fault the learned Judge in the view he has adopted. But there are many buts to any general proposition.
(3.) . Shri Tarkunde appearing for the respondents, stressed before us, as an additional consideration that if the cases were withdrawn to the High Court and tried, as was likely by a Division Bench of that Court his clients might lose a statutory right of appeal and would have to depend upon the chancy jurisdiction under Art.136 of the Constitution. A single appeal, as of right, would be taken away, was his apprehension.;