Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/12 vs Gossnier Evangelical Lutheran Church ... on 17 March, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010042082025
2025:GAU-AS:2836
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/82/2025
JOSEPH KANDULNA
S/O LATE MATIDAS KANULNA, PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY, IMMANUEL
JUNIOR COLLEGE, BAMUNI HILLS, NEW KALIBARI, TEZPUR, MOUZA-
MAHABHAIRAB, P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR, DIST-SONITPUR
VERSUS
GOSSNIER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND 4 ORS
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI, JHARKHAND, HAVING
SEVERAL DIOCESES ALL OVER INDIA INCLUDING THE NORTH EAST
DIOCESE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAMUNI HILLS, NEW KALIBARI,
TEZPUR, P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR, MOUZA-MAHABHAIRAB, DIST-
SONITPUR, TEZPUR, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY MRS SUJAYA KUJUR, W/O MR. SUBIR KUJUR, GENERAL
SECRETARY OF GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, CENTRAL
COUNCIL OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI, JHARKHAND
2:NOWEL JOJOWAR
S/O LATE MARTIN JOJOWAR
EX-GENERAL SECRETARY
GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
3:DR. NELSON LAKRA
S/O LATE MOSES LAKRA
EX-MODERATOR
GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
RANCHI
C/O GEL CHURCH
Page No.# 2/12
GHAGRA SANTIPUR
P.O.-GHGRA SANTIPUR
VIA DHEKIAJULI
DIST-SONITPUR
ASSAM
4:NIRMAL BHUYAN
S/O LATE JOHAN BHUYAN
BISHOP
NORTH EAST DIOCESE
BAMUNI HILLS
NEW KALIBARI
TEZPUR
MOUZA - MAHABHAIRAB
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
5:ISHWAR DUTT KANDULNA (STRANGER)
S/O LATE HARMEN KANDULNA
R/O CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
GOSSNIER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
P.O.-RANCHI
P.S.-RANCHI
DIST-RANCHI
JHARKHAN
Linked Case : CRP(IO)/69/2025
JOSEPH KANDULNA
S/O LATE MATIDAS KANULNA
PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY
IMMANUEL JUNIOR COLLEGE
BAMUNI HILLS
NEW KALIBARI
TEZPUR
MOUZA- MAHABHAIRAB
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
DIST-SONITPUR
PIN-
VERSUS
Page No.# 3/12
GOSSNIER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND 4 ORS
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
HAVING SEVERAL DIOCESES ALL OVER INDIA INCLUDING THE NORTH
EAST DIOCESE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAMUNI HILLS
NEW KALIBARI
TEZPUR
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
MOUZA- MAHABHAIRAB
DIST- SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
MRS SUJAYA KUJUR
W/O MR. SUBIR KUJUR
GENERAL SECRETARY OF GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
2:NOWEL JOJOWAR
S/O LATE MARTIN JOJOWAR
EX-GENERAL SECRETARY
GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
3:DR. NELSON LAKRA
S/O LATE MOSES LAKRA
EX-MODERATOR
GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
RANCHI
C/O GEL CHURCH
GHAGRA SANTIPUR
P.O.-GHGRA SANTIPUR
VIA DHEKIAJULI
DIST-SONITPUR
ASSAM
4:NIRMAL BHUYAN
S/O LATE JOHAN BHUYAN
BISHOP
NORTH EAST DIOCESE
Page No.# 4/12
BAMUNI HILLS
NEW KALIBARI
TEZPUR
MOUZA - MAHABHAIRAB
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
5:ISHWAR DUTT KANDULNA
S/O LATE HARMEN KANDULNA
THE SECRETARY GENERAL
GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
RANCHI
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
Linked Case : CRP(IO)/74/2025
JOSEPH KANDULNA
S/O LATE MATIDAS KANULNA
PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY
IMMANUEL JUNIOR COLLEGE
BAMUNI HILLS
NEW KALIBARI
TEZPUR
MOUZA- MAHABHAIRAB
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
DIST-SONITPUR
VERSUS
GOSSNIER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND 4 ORS
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
HAVING SEVERAL DIOCESES ALL OVER INDIA INCLUDING THE NORTH
EAST DIOCESE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAMUNI HILLS
NEW KALIBARI
TEZPUR
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
MOUZA- MAHABHAIRAB
DIST- SONITPUR
TEZPUR
Page No.# 5/12
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MRS SUJAYA KUJUR
W/O MR. SUBIR KUJUR
GENERAL SECRETARY OF GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
2:NOWEL JOJOWAR
S/O LATE MARTIN JOJOWAR
EX-GENERAL SECRETARY
GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
3:DR. NELSON LAKRA
S/O LATE MOSES LAKRA
EX-MODERATOR
GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
RANCHI
C/O GEL CHURCH
GHAGRA SANTIPUR
P.O.-GHGRA SANTIPUR
VIA DHEKIAJULI
DIST-SONITPUR
ASSAM
4:NIRMAL BHUYAN
S/O LATE JOHAN BHUYAN
BISHOP
NORTH EAST DIOCESE
BAMUNI HILLS
NEW KALIBARI
TEZPUR
MOUZA - MAHABHAIRAB
P.O. AND P.S.-TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
5:ISHWAR DUTT KANDULNA
S/O LATE HARMEN KANDULNA
THE SECRETARY GENERAL
GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH
RANCHI
CENTRAL COUNCIL OFFICE
Page No.# 6/12
MAIN ROAD
RANCHI
JHARKHAND
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. A. Sahad, Advocate
Ms. P. Choudhury, Advocate
For the respondent (s) : XXXX
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
17.03.2025 Heard Mr. A. Sahad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. This Court by this present order would dispose of the three applications, i.e. CRP(IO) No.69/2025; CRP(IO) No.74/2025 and CRP(IO) No.82/2025 taking into account that all these three applications have been filed in connection with the suit being Title Suit No.148/2021.
3. It is seen from the materials on record that the respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.148/2021 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 at Tezpur (for short, 'the learned Trial Court') seeking declaration of its right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land; for recovery of khas possession of the Schedule-A land by evicting the defendant No.1 and his men, agents etc. along with Page No.# 7/12 their materials; for cancellation of the Sale Deed being Deed No.1814/2012 of Tezpur Sub-Registry declaring it to be null and void and inoperative; for cancellation of the mutation order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Tezpur, mutation entries in the name of Immanuel Junior College passed on the basis of the purported Sale Deed as described in Schedule B to the plaint, declaring it to be null and void and inoperative; and for consequential relief for permanent injunction etc.
4. It is very pertinent to mention that the suit was filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 herein through its General Secretary, one Mrs. Sujaya Kujur. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 who is the petitioner herein had filed the written statement.
5. In the said suit, three applications were filed by the Plaintiff.
6. The First Application is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') to bring to the notice of the learned Trial Court that the respondent No.5 herein was appointed as the General Secretary of the plaintiff and he had taken over the charge of the Plaintiff. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.304/2023. The defendant No.1 who is the petitioner herein had filed written objection against the said application.
7. The learned Trial Court vide the order dated 05.09.2024 Page No.# 8/12 allowed the said application and it is under such circumstances, CRP(IO) No.69/2025 was filed.
8. The Plaintiff filed another application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code seeking leave of the Court to produce the copy of the appointment letter issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 herein and also notarized General Power of Attorney executed by the General Secretary in favour of one Deven Chandra Bhengra on 30.08.2023. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.303/2023. The petitioner herein who was the defendant No.1 had filed written objection and the learned Trial Court vide the order dated 05.09.2024 allowed the said application thereby granting leave to the plaintiff to produce the documents so mentioned in the said petition. It is under such circumstances, CRP(IO) No.74/2025 was filed.
9. The third petition so filed by the Plaintiff through the Respondent No.5 before the learned Trial Court was an application filed for passing an appropriate order against the defendants for production of documents as mentioned in the said application. This application though had been filed in terms with Order XII Rule 8 read with Section 151 of the Code, but essentially it was an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc.
Page No.# 9/12 (J) Case No.302/2023. The defendant No.1, i.e. the petitioner herein had filed written objection and the learned Trial Court vide the order dated 05.09.2024 allowed the said application being Misc (J) Case No.302/2023 thereby directing the Defendant No.1 to produce the documents in original at the proper stage of the trial in order to enable the plaintiff to mark those documents as exhibits in the evidence. It is under such circumstances, CRP(IO) No.82/2025 was filed.
10. Mr. A. Sahad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in all the three applications before this Court submitted that the learned Trial Court had exercised a jurisdiction not vested upon it on law in view of the fact that a stranger was permitted to file such applications in the suit, and as such, the orders impugned in the three applications are required to be interfered with.
11. This Court is of the opinion that the said submission is totally misconceived in as much as the first application which is the subject matter of CRP(IO) No.69/2025 is essentially an application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code whereby attention was drawn that the earlier General Secretary of the Plaintiff had changed and the Respondent No.5 herein is the General Secretary of the Plaintiff. In the case of Shri Rikhu Dev Chela Bawa Harjug Dass vs. Som Dass (Decased) through his Page No.# 10/12 Chela Shiam Dass, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 103, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue in respect of a suit brought by or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devolution of interest of the representative. It was opined that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code shall apply. Paragraph Nos.8 & 9 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"8. This rule is based on the principle that trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject-matter of the suit has devolved upon another during the pendency of the suit but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring the interest with the leave of the Court. When a suit is brought by or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devolution of the interest of the representative, the rule that has to be applied is Order 22 Rule 10 and not Rule 3 or 4, whether the devolution takes place as a consequence of death or for any other reason. Order 22 Rule 10 is not confined to devolution of interest of a party by death; it also applies if the head of the mutt or manager of the temple resigns his office or is removed from office. In such a case the successor to the head of the mutt or to the manager of the temple may be substituted as a party under this rule. The word "interest" which is mentioned in this rule means interest in the property i.e. the subject-matter of the suit and the interest is the interest of the person who was the party to the suit.
Page No.# 11/12
9. It was, however, contended on behalf of the respondent that there was no devolution of the interest in the subject-matter of the suit on the death of Som Dass, since there was no certainty as to the person who would be elected as mahant to succeed him. The argument was that it was uncertain on the death of Som Dass as to who would become the mahant by election, that it was only when a person succeeded to the mahantship on the death of a previous mahant by virtue of law or custom that there would be devolution of interest in the subject-matter of the suit and, therefore, Order 22 Rule 10, would not be attracted. We see no force in this argument. We are of the view that devolution of the interest in the subject-matter of the suit took place when Shiam Dass was elected as mahant of the Dera after the death of Som Dass."
12. In the instant case, the suit was filed by the Plaintiff through its General Secretary Mrs. Sujaya Kujur. The Respondent No.5 herein being the present general Secretary filed the said application to bring to the attention of the Court that the suit now would be continued on behalf of the Plaintiff through the Respondent No.5. The learned Trial Court in the opinion of this Court had rightly allowed the application filed.
13. The second application is an application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code by which the Plaintiff sought the leave of the learned Trial Court to bring on record two Page No.# 12/12 documents. This Court is of the opinion that learned the Trial Court has the power to grant the leave in terms with Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code and accordingly in its discretion had granted the leave. This Court finds no jurisdictional error in exercise of its jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court.
14. The third application which resulted in the filing of CRP(IO) No.82/2025 was essentially an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code thereby seeking appropriate directions upon the defendant No.1/the petitioner herein to produce certain documents. The learned Trial Court taking into account that the said documents are essential for the purpose of adjudication of the issues involved have passed appropriate directions vide the impugned order dated 05.09.2024. The said, in the opinion of this Court, do not call for any interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
15. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the three applications so filed herein under Article 227 of the Constitution for which the same stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant