Karnataka High Court
The Parish Priest vs Smt. Mary Stella on 6 December, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:50492
MFA No. 6215 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6215 OF 2017 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE PARISH PRIEST,
HOLY REDEEMER CHURCH,
HENNUR BANDE MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANIL KUMAR A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MARY STELLA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
RESIDINGA AT NO.36,
PUTTANNA MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M BASAVEHSWARA LAYOUT,
Location: HIGH KALYAN NAGAR POST,
COURT OF HENNUR BANGALORE-560043.
KARNATAKA
2. SRI ANTHONY PRADEEP M,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O SRI MICHAELAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.31,
CHIKKAGULAPPA,
KALYAN NAGAR POST,
HENNUR BANGALORE-560043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED ON
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:50492
MFA No. 6215 of 2017
I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2501/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND
2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents is absent and this Court made it clear in the previous occasion that if the learned counsel for the respondents does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be heard in his absence.
2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 12.07.2017 allowing I.A.No.1 and dismissing I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.2501/2017 and made an ad-interim order as absolute.
3. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that they are the Parishioners of Holy Redeemer Church situated at Hennur Bande Main road, (which is hereinafter referred as schedule Church) and for which the Church has issued family book to all the Parishioners and that shows that the plaintiffs are the Parishioners of the said Church, that the Church was devoted to the faithful public in the year -3- NC: 2024:KHC:50492 MFA No. 6215 of 2017 2008 and from the date of its inception, the masses and prayer are offered in Kannada and English languages and the same is followed by all these days. It is contended that the devotees of the said Church are mainly Kannada speaking people. That the Church being a place of worship is functioning at the participation of the devotees in offering holy mass and prayer, all the decision of the Church shall be made by the devotees in consonance with the law of the land and regional customary practices. That being the case, the defendant being the Priest of the schedule Church made announcement on 19.02.2017 for introducing holy mass in other languages i.e., Tamil and Hindi. The said decision was not known to the Parishioners before the same being announced, as the said issue was not discussed or raised before the Parishioners and no approval was obtained from the Parishioners and since the Parishioners were kept in dark regarding the commencement of mass in new languages, the plaintiffs along with other Parishioners approached the defendant and expressed their dissent over the same and requested the defendant to maintain status quo and not to create any disturbance on linguistic grounds and the defendant did not listen to the request of the plaintiffs. Hence, suit was filed and sought interim relief to restrain the defendant. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:50492 MFA No. 6215 of 2017
4. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement. The Trial Court taking note of the pleadings of the parties, formulated the points with regard to making out of prima facie case. The Trial Court taken note of the fact that though the defendant contends that he is not having authority to take decision regarding commencement of masses in other languages and he is only having authority to implement the decision taken by the higher authorities like Archbishop and other supreme authorities, no documents are placed by the defendant regarding compliance of above direction nor it is the contention that the higher authorities of the defendant have complied the above directions before making the announcement about introducing of new languages for conducting masses. The Trial Court taken note of the said pleadings and also taken note of that the contention of the plaintiffs is supported by the affidavit of the Secretary of the Parish Council which is filed along with the plaint. In order to substantiate the same, the plaintiffs have also produced the Minute Book of the Church for perusal of this Court. On perusal of the said Minute Book, it transpires that the person filed the affidavit in support of the plaintiffs contention is the Secretary of the Parish Council and also that no proceedings were held before introducing masses in -5- NC: 2024:KHC:50492 MFA No. 6215 of 2017 new languages. The Trial Court taking note of all these materials comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and granted the relief.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contend that the Trial Court committed an error in passing such an order and hence it requires interference of this Court.
6. The Trial Court granted the relief vide order dated 12.07.2017 and still the suit is pending before the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case is set down for cross-examination of P.W.1 and the matter is pending before the City Civil Court. The Trial Court has given the reason for granting the relief and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and that the defendant has not placed any material before the Court with regard to the contention that they are complying with the directions of Arch Bishop. When such a reasoned order has been passed, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing such an order. However, taking note of the suit is of the year 2017 and that the case is set down for the cross- examination of P.W.1, instead of interfering with the findings of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:50492 MFA No. 6215 of 2017 the Trial Court, this Court can direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from today.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from today.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31