Karnataka High Court
Rt Rev Dr. Prasanna Kumar Samuel vs Mr. Shashi Ranjan Das on 19 September, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
MFA NO.7474/2018 (CPC)
BETWEEN
RT REV DR. PRASANNA
KUMAR SAMUEL
S/O OF LATE R K SAMUEL
AGED 62 YEARS
BISHOP, KCD, THE KARNATAKA
CENTRAL DIOCESAN OFFICE
NO 20, 3RD CROSS
CSI COMPOUND,
BANGALORE- 560 027 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARUN B. M. ADV.)
AND
1. MR. SHASHI RANJAN DAS
SON OF LATE SUNDER RAJU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING ATNO 10, 9TH CROSS
16TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 029
2. MRS GRACE NIRMALA
WIFE OF MR SUNIL PETERS
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO J- 501
ROYAL LEGEND APARTMENT
KODICHIKKANAHALLI ROAD
BOMMANAHALLI
BANGALORE- 560 068
2
3. MR VINCENT SAMUEL
SON OF MR SAMUEL DEVARAJ
RESIDING AT NO 92
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI
NEAR 5 STAR BAKERY
BILLIKAHALLIL POST
BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 076
4. REV S WILLIAM JONES
PRESBYTER CSI, COVENANT CHURCH
NO 18, FIRST MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA ST BED
BENGALURU - 560 034
AND ALSO R/AT NO 54
'SMITH HOUSE', BEHIND
NOBLE STORES MISSION ROAD
S R NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027
3. CSI COVENANT CHURCH
NO 18, FIRST MAIN 4TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA ST BED
BENGALURU - 560 034
REP. BY ITS PRESBYTER IN
CHARGE REV ALFRED SUDARSHAN
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YADAVA K., ADV. FOR
C/R1 TO R3 [CP NO.1156/2018]
NOTICE TO R4 & R5 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r)
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:07/09/2018,
PASSED ON IA.NO.I, IN O.S. NO.5839/2018, ON THE
FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BENGALURU CITY,
ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2
OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Notice to be issued to the respondent Nos.4 & 5 is dispensed with, as per the request of the appellant's counsel and at his risk.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Caveator/respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit before the trial Court in OS No.5839/2018 (respondents 1 to 3 herein) who are the contesting respondents, for the following reliefs:
(i) Pass decree and judgment declaring that the letter dated 12.7.2018 bearing No.Nil, issued by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant directing the 2nd defendant to conduct fresh election to the Pastorate Committee of the CSI Covenant Church, Koramangala, for the year Triennium 2018 to 2021, is null and void.
(ii) Pass Decree and Judgment declaring that the election conducted by the second defendant on 17.6.2018 and result announced to the Pastorate Committee of the CSI Covenant Church, Koramangala, for 4 the year Triennium 2018 to 2021 is sound, proper and in accordance with law.
(iii) Pass Decree and Judgment by way of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from conducting fresh election to the Pastorate Committee of the CSI Covenant Church, Koramangala, for the year Triennium 2018 to 2021.
(iv) Pass Decree and Judgment for cost of the suit.
(v) Pass such other Decree deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court from the facts and circumstances of the suit, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Interalia, the plaintiffs have also filed an Interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, for grant of an ad- interim order of Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants therein from conducting fresh elections to the Pastorate Committee of the CSI Covenant Church, Koramangala, (5th respondent herein) for the year Triennium 2018 to 2021, on the basis of the notice dated 12.7.2018 issued by the first defendant to the 5 second defendant directing the second defendant to conduct fresh election during the pendency of the said suit.
5. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has passed a detail order allowing the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, and restrained the defendants from conducting fresh elections to the Pastorate Committee of the CSI Covenant Church, Koramangala, Bengaluru, for the year Triennium 2018 to 2021.
6. The said order is challenged before this court by the defendant No.1 (appellant herein). The respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance before this court.
7. In view of the urgency pleaded by the parties, this court has taken up the matter and passed the order dated 14.9.2018, as under:
(a) The impugned judgment and order are stayed;6
(b) The elections contemplated pursuant to the order dated 12.7.2018 made by the first defendant in the suit, may go on as scheduled or to be re-scheduled;
(c) The result of the elections
mentioned at immediately preceding
paragraph (b) above, shall not be
declared/announced or otherwise, made
public without the prior permission of this Court;
(d) It is open to the respondent -
Plaintiffs also to participate in the subject elections without prejudice to their right to prosecute the suit in question or their defence in this appeal; and
(e) The violation of any of the above conditions shall be viewed seriously.
Call this matter on 19.09.2018."
Therefore, by virtue of the above said order, the order passed by the trial Court granting injunction virtually has been diluted and this court has permitted the appellant to conduct elections. However, the record submitted by the appellant disclose that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not personally participated in the 7 elections though the learned counsel for the appellant canvassed before this court that the kith and kin of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have participated in the election.
8. Be that as it may, it goes without saying that, the rights of the plaintiffs have not been disturbed so far as the claim of the plaintiffs are concerned. Further, the prayer sought for by the plaintiffs remains to be considered by the trial Court after conducting due trial by providing opportunity to both the parties.
9. Now, the election has already been conducted afresh in the year 2018. The prayer of the plaintiff before the trial Court is to declare that the election conducted earlier on 17.6.2018 shall be declared as valid and the result announced by the Pastorate Committee of the CSI Covenant Church, Koramangala, Bengaluru, for the year Triennium 2018 to 2021, is sound and proper. Therefore, if for any reason, the court decrees the suit, declaring that, the earlier election dated 17.6.2018 as valid, in such an eventuality, the subsequent election is subject to the 8 decision of the trial Court on the second prayer sought for in the Original Suit.
10. Under the above said circumstances, the fact remains that on the basis of the previous election dated 17.6.2018 admittedly, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not taken charge, they have not been inducted as elected members of the Committee. If for any reason, the result of the present election is not declared and the elected members are not allowed to perform their duties, it will create a chaos so far as the institution is concerned as the previous body have not taken any charge. Therefore, for the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, if the result of the election conducted by the appellants on 16.9.2018 is declared and made it public, there is no impediment for them to pass appropriate order in this regard. However, it is made further clear that whatever the proceedings that has been taken place during the pendency of the suit, it is again subject to the final decision of the suit.
9
11. The learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that he has not only prayed the subsequent elections not to be conducted, but also he has challenged the letter dated 12.7.2018 issued by the first defendant to the second defendant directing the second defendant to conduct fresh elections and also for declaration that the election in which he won dated 17.6.2018 has to be declared as valid and proper. Therefore, whatever the subsequent proceedings that has been taken place, during the pendency of the suit again they are subjected to the prayer sought for and the result of the suit before the trial Court.
12. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has to be directed to proceed with the matter so far as the main prayers in the case is concerned. It is also made clear that whatever the observation made by this court vide order dated 14.9.2018, allowing the appellants to conduct elections, those observations shall not in any manner persuade the trial Court to pass any order on merits of the suit, but on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, 10 the trial Court has to decide the matter in accordance with law.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that a direction has to be issued to the trial Court so as to expedite the trial, as his rights are affected. Further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without allowing the parties to un-necessarily drag on the proceedings.
14. With the aforesaid observation, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court on IA No.1 in OS No.5839/2018 dated 7.9.2018 by the XXXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bengaluru City, which has virtually diluted by this court is hereby set aside.11
The result of the election conducted by the appellants dated 16.9.2018 shall be announced in accordance with law.
The trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit in the light of the observations made in the body of this order preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without allowing the parties unnecessarily to drag on the proceedings. Both the parties are directed to co-operate for disposal of the suit in accordance with law within the specified period.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*