Justice Arun Mishra seriously erred because a judgment does not become a judgment in rem merely because it arises out of a representative suit. For instance, a judgement in a suit between husband and wife for divorce, where divorce is granted is a judgment in rem, and where it is denied, it is a judgment in personam. The determinative factor is whether there is a change in title or status


In execution of the judgment in K.S Varghese, the Othrodox faction could capture the Kollenchery, Mannathur and Varikoli churches belonging to the Jacobite faction. The judgement in K.S Varghese was thus executed and nothing further remained. However, unfortunately, in the name of the judgment in K.S Varghese, the Orthodox faction proceeded to capture the churches of the Jacobite faction, obtaining orders for police protection from the Kerala High Court.

It was at this juncture that I came into the picture and sought to point out the fundamental mistakes that unfortunately happened to be made. The contentions which I make are of pure jurisprudence, fundamentals. If I am wrong the Court need only record my contentions and state the reasons as to why the contentions are not tenable. However, I am faced with great hostility. The judges refuse to even record the contentions, let alone deal with it fairly (see Justice Devan Ramachandran’s judgment in R.F.A 570/2004 dated 2.6.2020). Had the Hon’ble judges recorded my contentions, which I believe are absolutely tenable for the Orthodox faction has not been able to offer any counter, for it is impossible for anyone to plead that the individual churches of the Jacobites would be bound by a judgment, be it the 1958, 2017 or 2019 judgement, where they were not parties at all. For the rule of res judicata to be applied the minimum conditions to be met are:
a) The parties ought to be the same
b) Cause action ought to be the same
c) The cause of action ought to have been adjudicated on merits
d) The parties ought to have been heard

Few Jacobite Christians from different parts of the country approached me stating that those who are in charge of the conduct of the case of the Jacobite faction are acting in collusion with their opposite party, and therefore, what is going to be done is a match fixing, and that I should appear for them. Accordingly, I filed an application for intervention post haste, and sought to address the Court. Justice Devan Ramachandran was mistaken to believe that my appearance was to seek his recusal, and said repeatedly that he is not going to recuse, leaving me no option than to repeatedly reassure him that I had no such intention, and requested him to hear me.

Reticence is a great virtue, and therefore, I refrain from making any comment, except to say that his Lordship had no patience and was interrupting me repeatedly making it difficult to get two sentences out before another interruption. But the unkindest cut of all was the absolutely false and incorrect charge his Lordship levelled against me, stating that I used the words “wretched court”, which I did not. And I repeatedly asserted that I did not. In spite of the repeated interruption and the near hostile treatment which was not entirely unanticipated, which again for reasons of reticence, I do not wish to elaborate, I was still completely, taken aback when such a false statement was made.

The entire court proceedings are recorded. I told the Ld. Judge that if he were to watch video recordings which his lordship promised to do, he would realise that I had made no such statement. I would not have addressed this letter that I received a few calls stating that they came across a new clipping stating that I had used ‘improper language’ during the hearing. It is not that I believe that misreporting of this sort can have any consequence, I would not have even known of it if not for the calls of a few well-wishers. But what is at stake is the cause of justice, the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

As a lawyer, I know I can do nothing. There is no mechanism for redressal of the grievances of litigants and lawyers when unjustly treated. I address your Lordship only for the satisfaction that in the face of injustice I did not fail to speak.