Karnataka High Court
Executive Board Of Methodist Church In ... vs The Commissioner Of Police on 14 March, 2016
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.59749/2015 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
Executive Board of Methodist Church in India,
Rep by its G.P.A. Holder,
District Superintendent,
Belagavi District,
Rev. Dr. Prabhakar Shadrack,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Shri. Shadrack Tigadolli,
R/o Methodist Church-Belagavi,
Mission Compound (opp to District Court)
Belagavi District-590016. ...PETITIONER
(BY Smt. Pramila Nesargi, Senior Counsel for
Sri. Shiva Shankar.C)
AND:
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Belagavi City , Belagavi,
Belagavi-590001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Of Police market sub-div Belagavi,
Belagavi 590001.
3. The Police Inspector,
Market Police Station, Belagavi,
Belagavi-590001.
2
4. Shankar Munavalli,
S/o Hanumanthappa Munavalli
Aged about 59 years,
R/o 1151, Saraf Galli
Shahpur Belagavi,
Belagavi-590001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY Smt. K. Vidyavathi AGA for R-1 to R-3,
Sri. Ananth Mandagi Senior Counsel for Sri. Jagadish Patil,
Advocate for R4)
...
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DATED 26.12.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-U PASSED BY THE
R-3.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED IS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is posted for orders on I.A.1/2016 for vacating stay, by consent of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for both parties, the same is taken up for final hearing.
2. Petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the notice dated 26.12.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner directing him to comply with the order made in Writ Appeal No.100825/2015 confirming the order dated 30th October, 2015 made in Writ Petition No.112324/2015.
3
3. It is the case of the petitioner- Methodist Church that it is a minority religious and charitable trust engaged in religious, educational, medical and social services for more than 150 years and its educational and medical institutions are well known for their standard and excellence providing service and benefits to all sections of the society, particularly to the poor and downtrodden. It has organized 12 regional conferences and each regional conference is administered by a Bishop. There is a General Secretary, who is the Constituted Attorney of the Methodist Church of India (MCI) and all the properties of the MCI are held by the Executive Board of the MCI. The South India Regional Conference (SIRC) is one of the 12 Regional Conferences. Each Regional Conference is further organized into several districts administered by a District Superintendent, who is appointed by the area Bishop. The District Superintendent is given the Power of Attorney to represent the General Secretary in all property and legal matters. SIRC is divided into 12 districts and Belgaum is one of them. There are number of Churches and 14 Methodist Educational Institutions within the City of 4 Belgaum, the oldest of which was established in the year 1832.
4. The name of the petitioner-Church has been changed twice. It was formerly known as the Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia (MECSA) and Methodist Church in Southern Asia (MCSA). The Methodist Church in Southern Asia was registered at Bombay on 20th May, 1942 under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Methodist Church in India has been inherited from its predecessor, a large and huge properties all over India. One of such properties in Belgaum measuring 26 acres and 32 guntas which is also a prime property has come under unnecessary dispute and litigation created by anti Church elements and land grabbers in connivance with the vested interests and the politicians. The said property was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 11.3.1908 for a consideration of Rs.35,000/- in pursuance of which the mutation took place in the name of District Superintendent on 1.3.1927 in the certificate bearing ME No.1005. Subsequently it was changed as ME No. 9905 dated 29.7.1956 and the latest numbers are 971/A, 971/B and 5 971/C and the said lands were converted into non agricultural in the year 1929-30 and after conversion, they have been numbered as CTS Nos. 3928, 3929, 3929/1, 3929/2, 3939/3, 3929/4B and 3929/5.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that from 11.3.1908, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Several buildings have been constructed over the properties by the erstwhile predecessors. There are two Church buildings, two huge residential bungalows, hostels for boys and girls, Sherman Kannada School, Sherman English Medium High School, D.Ed. College, John Wesley PU College, District Superintendent's Bungalow, Pastors' Residences, Principals' Quarters and a number of Staff Quarters given to the employees serving in the Educational Institutions. It further contended that in the year 1941 one Vishnu Vasudev Kulkarni filed a Original Suit against Chandrahas @ Dattatraya Gurunath and other in O.S.No.501/1941 for partition and separate possession, in which, the then Methodist Episcopal Church was arrayed as defendant No.11 in respect of the property bearing R.S.Nos. 971/A, 971/B and 971/C and the same came to be decreed 6 on 29.1.1943. In the year 1960, one Sham Shesho Kulkarni and 9 others filed an application under Section 4 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act, 1950 for regrant of the said lands bearing Sy.Nos. 971/A, 971/B and 971/C and it appears, that they have been regranted in favour of the 10 members. In the said suit proceedings, the petitioner was not made as a party, though it was in its possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It is the further case of the petitioner's that some unauthorized persons have encroached some portion of the properties of the petitioner. Therefore, they filed O.S.No. 91/1974 and obtained a decree. The said dispute came to this Court in RSA Nos. 728/1990 and 744/1990 and this Court held that the petitioner is the owner and ordered to evict the unauthorized person. Accordingly, the trespassers have been evicted from the properties in pursuance of the order passed in E.P.No.17/2001.
6. The petitioner further contended that some people wanted to claim the property of the trust by calling themselves Methodist Church of India to grab the property and at that time the petitioner had filed 7 Writ Petition No. 1096/1980 before the High Court of Bombay and the said writ petition came to be allowed on 10.9.1984 directing the Union of India, the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh to remove the name of the Methodist Church of India from the register and further the Methodist Church of India was restrained from using the words 'Methodist Church' in its name.
7. When the things stood thus and the petitioner was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property, one Shashishekar Shivaji Kulkarni one of the purported regrantee filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum seeking permission to sell the said properties and obtained an order on 18.11.2006 from the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner again was not made as a party. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18490/2006 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 8.10.2007 allowed the writ petition against which the said Shashishekar Shivaji Kulkarni filed Writ Appeal No. 8 1974/2007. In the said writ appeal came to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.11.2008 directing the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the same within 3 months after hearing the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that one Lakshmikanth Vishnu Kulkarni filed a suit in O.S.No. 16/2009 against the Methodist Church in Southern Asia by Rev. Elder Marston Mophat, Secretary and Attorney, 115, Mahatma Gandhi Road, American Express Building, Fort Mumbai as defendant No.1 and The Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia, Robinson Memorial Byculla, Mumbai by its Chairman/Secretary as defendant No.2. During the pendency of the said suit, the said Lakshmikanth obtained an order of injunction on I.A.2 against the two defendants. The petitioner filed an application for impleading as a party in the said suit which was rejected on 17.3.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.63748/2009 which came to be disposed of with an observation that any 9 judgment and decree to be passed in O.S.No.16/2009, the same does not bind on the petitioner or on its properties. Thereafter, the present respondent No.4 filed I.A.No.21 for impleading himself on the ground that there is an agreement in his favour in the said suit and the said application was allowed on 18.4.2012 and there was no order of injunction passed in his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.60289/2011 and connected matters against the order dated 17.1.2011 for providing police protection. This Court by an interim order dated 24.2.2011 stayed the order passed on I.A.No.17 dated 17.1.2011. Then the 4th respondent filed a complaint against the Superintendent of Police, Belgaum that the police have not complied with the order of the Court for providing police protection to Lakshmikanth Kulkarni and the Superintendent of Police through CPI, Market Police Station by a letter dated 16.8.2010 made it clear that the petitioner is in possession of the properties, but Shankar Munavali on behalf of Kulkarni was 10 pressurizing the police to give possession of the property by removing the Church people from there. The 4th respondent suppressing all the facts filed W.P.No.112324/2015 against the Police Officers making defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 16/2009 as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 wherein the petitioner was not made as a party in the said proceedings and he obtained an order on 30.10.2015. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal in Writ Appeal No. 100825/2015 and during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner came to know that writ appeal has been filed in the name of the 5th respondent though he did not represent them. Therefore, the writ appeal came to be withdrawn at the instance of the petitioner.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that after withdrawing the writ appeal, again the 3rd respondent issued notice on 26.12.2015 to the petitioner, who is not a party to Writ Petition No. 112324/2015 directing him to obey the order passed in W.P.No.112324/2015. Hence, the respondent/police are harassing the 11 petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
9. Respondent No.4 has filed statement of objections to the writ petition contending that the writ petition is not maintainable for want of authority which the holder of GPA lacks for maintaining this writ petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the writ petition is filed by the Rev. Dr. Prabhakar Shadrack alleging to be the District Superintendent of Methodist Church of India, based on the General Power of Attorney executed in his favour by Rev. Munnangi Alfred Danial claiming to be the Secretary and constituted Attorney of Methodist Church of India is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the lands in question were granted in favour of the ancestors of Kulkarni by Hon'ble Ignit Bahadur Sarkar, the then Inam Commissioner by an order dated 31.1.1860 towards emoluments for the services rendered by the ancestors of Kulkarni's as Village Accountants under the provisions of Bombay Hereditary Office's Act. It is 12 also contended that the co-owners of the property in question have filed O.S.No.16/2009 for permanent injunction against the Methodist Church in Southern Asia. In the said suit an order of temporary injunction was passed against the said Church and its henchmen, agents, etc., restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. Since the said order was not honoured, the jurisdictional Civil Court passed an order directing the police to extend protection to implement the order of temporary injunction. The Methodist Church of India under different nomenclatures and identities tried to get itself impleaded in O.S.No.16/2009 claiming to be the successor in interest of Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia and Methodist Church in Southern Asia, but the said application was rejected holding that Methodist Church of India has failed to establish that it is the successor of the said Churches which is also confirmed by this Court.
13
10. The 4th respondent further contended that the Dr. Prabhakar Shadrack - the present petitioner filed O.S.No.700/2010 and O.S.No. 713/2010 for the same relief of declaration that the order/s passed and decree to be passed in O.S.No.16/2009 are not binding on him and also for consequential relief for permanent injunction. In O.S.No.713/2010, the plaint came to be rejected for want of locus standi to maintain the suit. In the said suit, the conduct of Dr. Prabhakar Shadrack in filing frivolous suits and misleading the Court is condemned and deprecated and the order passed by the Civil Court on 7.10.2008 would clearly establish that Methodist Church of India is a registered Trust and that it is not a successor of Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia and Methodist Church in Southern Asia and that Dr. Prabhakar Shadrack has no authority to represent the Methodist Church of India in any capacity. The petitioner has deliberately not chosen to produce the order copy of dismissal of W.P.No. 60289/2011 wherein liberty was sought to file a suit for 14 protecting its alleged rights over the lands in question. It is also contended that another suit in O.S.No. 1031/2012 was filed for declaration and injunction which was also rejected by an order dated 13.10.2015 and the petitioner has suffered adverse orders repeatedly and he has also failed to establish its alleged rights over the lands in question and suppressing the judicial orders, has filed this writ petition.
11. Respondent No.4 is one of the plaintiff having got himself impleaded as plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2009 as GPA holder and agreement holder of owners of the land in question. He has got every right to seek police protection since the order of temporary injunction operates in his favour. The 4th respondent filed W.P.No.112324/2015 seeking direction to the police to extend protection. The said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to file a complaint as and when there is a disturbance from the Church or person/s belonging to it and in the event of filing of such a complaint, the police were directed to 15 extend protection. Respondent No.4, therefore, filed a complaint with the police. It is further contended that respondent No.4 and the owners are only trying to protect their possession and enjoyment over the lands in question, but the police especially respondent No.3, who has colluded with the land grabbers claiming to be the representatives of the Church is nullying the Courts order passed in O.S.No.16/2009 by exchanging correspondences and notices with Dr. Prabhakar Shadrack so as to help him to gulp the valuable lands. It is also contended that respondent No.3 did not act on the complaint submitted by respondent No.4 but he issued an endorsement dated 25.11.2015 deliberately. Therefore, respondent No.4 was forced to file CCC No. 100017/2016 against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.112324/2015 and this Court issued notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated and accordingly, they appeared before the Court on 16 12.2.2016. In the said contempt proceedings, the official respondents filed an affidavit dated 21.1.2013 tendering unconditional apology. Accepting the same, the contempt proceedings were dropped. Therefore, respondent No.4 contended that the petitioner having hand in glove with the police authorities is trying to gulp the valuable land in question over which he has no semblance of title. The police have also colluded with the persons claiming to be the representatives of the Church and the said persons having support from the police are playing fraud upon this Court and also Civil Courts and has also succeeded in trying to scuttle the orders passed against the petitioner in various proceedings. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
13. Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 17 impugned notices dated 23.11.2015 and 26.12.2015 as per Annexures-S and U issued by respondent No.3 is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to W.P.No.112324/2015 and any order passed in the writ petition is not binding on the petitioner. She further contended that the writ petition is filed against the non existing person and without making proper parties is nothing but playing fraud on the Court. Hence, the writ petition W.P.No.112324/2015 itself was not maintainable and this Court ought to have dismissed with the same. There is no injunction order in favour of respondent No.4 against the petitioner in the pending suit and any observations made by this Court in W.P.No.63748/2009 and O.S.No.16/2009 is not binding on the petitioner or its properties. An application i.e., I.A.21 filed by respondent No.4 to implead himself in O.S.No.16/2009 was allowed on 18.4.2012 and there is no order of injunction in his favour. In the absence of any specific order passed by the Civil Court or this 18 Court in favour of the 4th respondent, the impugned notice issued by the police authorities is bad in law and cannot be sustained. Therefore, she sought to quash the impugned orders by allowing the writ petition.
14. Per contra, Sri Anantha Mandagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 strenuously contended that the very writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts of the case. The application filed by the petitioner for impleading him in the Original Suit 16/2009 came to be rejected on 12.6.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 63748/2009 which also came to be dismissed observing that the petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No. 713/2010 sought for declaration that the interim order regarding the police protection granted by the Civil Court in O.S.16/2009 is not binding on the petitioner and the said suit came to be dismissed on 7.8.2010. According to the petitioner, he had filed an 19 appeal, but however, nothing is brought on record in support of the said contention and the writ petition came to be dismissed imposing costs of Rs.20,000/- for suppression of material facts in the application for clarification and it was also made clear that the interim order passed in O.S.No.16/2009 binds all the parties to the original suit. He further contended that this Court initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the petitioners and others in Criminal Contempt i.e., CCC No. 22/2012 (Criminal) (the present petitioner was the second accused in the said contempt proceedings) and on the basis of the affidavits filed by accused Nos. 2 to 8 dated 21.1.2013, tendering unconditional apology including the present petitioner, the contempt proceedings came to be dropped.
15. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the respondent No.4 herein filed W.P.No.112324/2015 before this Court for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to extend the police protection and to implement the orders dated 17.3.2009 and 20 25.4.2009 passed on I.As. 2 and 7. The learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 30th October, 2015 disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the respondent No.4 herein to make a complaint or furnish information to the police as and when any person belonging to respondent No.5-defendant No.2 (the Methodist Church for Southern Asia (D.20), Robinson Memorial Byculla, Mumbai represented by its Chairman/Secretary) makes an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession or enjoyment of his property, and if any such complaint is made, the police directed to give protection to the 4th respondent herein from illegal interference by respondent No.5, against the said order, the present petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 100825/2015 before the Division Bench of this Court and the very Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present case, who had also appeared in the said appeal, submits that by mistake the writ appeal was filed and therefore, a memo was filed seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the appeal. 21 Accepting the memo, the writ appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, sought to dismiss the above writ petition.
16. Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 and submits that the said notice is issued in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
17. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
18. There are series of disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Original suits and several writ petitions were filed between the parties. The impugned notice issued by respondent No.3/Police Inspector is as per Annexure-U addressing the petitioner only states that there is an order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 100825/2015 in favour of the 4th respondent directing not to interfere with the 22 possession. Therefore, the Police Inspector requested the petitioner not to disturb the possession of respondent No.4 and the notice also states that if there are any orders in favour of the petitioner, subsequent order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal, the same may kindly be produced before him. The said communication is questioned in the present writ petition. It is relevant to state at this stage that though in the body as well as in the grounds of the writ petition that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent dated 23.11.2015 and 26.12.2015 but what is sought in the prayer of the writ petition is only to quash the notice dated 26.12.2015 vide Annexure-U and not the annexure-S.
19. The impugned notice issued by the Police Inspector requesting the petitioner not to interfere with the possession of the 4th respondent in pursuance of the order dated 30.10.2015 passed in W.P.No. 112324/2015 and the judgment dated 8.12.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No. 100825/2015 and also to 23 produce any subsequent order passed by this Court in favour of the very petitioner. If that is the substance of the impugned notice, the petitioner ought to have produced the material document before the Police Officer to protect his possession and instead of producing any material before the Authority/Police Officer, the present writ petition is filed which is not maintainable and the Police Officer has no right to decide the rights of the parties in respect of the immoveable property. Whenever there is an order passed by the Court directing to enforce and implement any order, it is the duty of the Police Officer to implement the same in letter and spirit of the order passed by the respective Courts.
20. It is not in dispute that this very petitioner filed W.P.No. 63748/2009 before this Court against the order dated 12.6.2009 on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No. 16/2009 dismissing the application for impleading which was confirmed by this Court on 24th July, 2009 clarifying that the judgment and decree to be passed in 24 O.S.No.16/2009 does not bind the petitioner or its property and the petitioner need not be impleaded in the suit.
21. It is also not in dispute that O.S.No. 16/2009 is filed by one Lakshmikant - plaintiff against the defendants and the trial Court granted temporary injunction on 17.3.2009 restraining defendant therein from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. It is also not in dispute that the application filed by the very petitioner for impleading came to be rejected on 17.3.2009 and subsequently it was confirmed by this Court as stated supra.
22. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein filed W.P.Nos. 60289/2011 and 60317 to 60319/2011 before this Court praying to transfer O.S.Nos. 516/2005, 669/2006, 16/2009 and 700/2010 pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum to any other Court and by way of amendment, 25 the petitioner also challenged the order dated 25.4.2009 on I.A.No.7 by which the police are directed to give protection to implement the order dated 17.4.2009 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Belgaum on I.A.2 granting injunction from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the disposal of the suit and the said prayer seeking transfer was not pressed before this Court. This Court by an order dated 9th April, 2012 observed that the petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute in O.S.No. 16/2009 which the respondents in the petition seriously dispute and the petitioners are not the defendants in the said suit. It is also observed that this Court does not wish to enter into the controversy/or examine the questions whether the petitioners are in possession of the suit property in O.S.No.16/2009? What are their legal status? Whether they have any right in the suit property?; and Whether they can seek any relief against the respondent/plaintiff? and disposed of the writ petitions 26 reserving liberty to the petitioners to protect their right, if any, and possession before the appropriate forum without deciding the case on merits.
23. It is also not in dispute that the very petitioner filed O.S.No.1031/2012 for declaration and permanent injunction and in the said suit, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 filed I.A.Nos.4A and 8 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC., for rejection of the plaint, which was allowed and the plaint came to be rejected on 13th October, 2015. The said order has become final and conclusive. The O.S.No. 713/2010 for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected observing that the said suit filed by him is frivolous and the conduct of the plaintiff is abusing the process of the Court and wasting the precious time of the Court. The said order has attained finality.
24. The very petitioner filed W.P.No. 63748/2009 against the order dated 12.6.2009 passed on I.A.8 in 27 O.S.No.16/2009 and sought clarification of the order dated 24.7.2009 in O.S.No. 16/2009. This Court after hearing the parties by its order dated 27.8.2010 has disposed of the said writ petition observing that the petitioner in all fairness should have mentioned in the application that he had filed suits in O.S.No.713/2010 and also O.S.No. 700/2010. Such suppression of facts cannot be tolerated by this Court and hence, heavy costs has to be imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, imposed the cost of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner for suppression of material facts in the application for clarification. The said order is final and conclusive.
25. It is also relevant to state that the petitioner and others tried to obstruct the Presiding Officer from passing judicial order in O.S.No.16/2009 by forcibly entering his Chamber by threatening him with dire consequences which resulted in initiating suo-moto criminal contempt proceedings against the very petitioner and others by the Registrar General of this Court in Crl.CCC 22/2012 (Criminal). The Division 28 Bench of this Court, after hearing both the parties to the lis has observed that accused Nos. 1 to 8 are ready to express their regret and have tendered unconditional apology dated 21.1.2013 to Shri H.R. Ravikumar, the Presiding Officer, wherever he is; No doubt, the conduct of accused Nos. 1 to 8 is unacceptable; However, they have tendered unconditional apology and that they will not repeat such acts in future and considered it proper to accept the unconditional apology and drop the contempt proceedings. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 to 8 were directed to appear before Shri H.R. Ravikumar, the Presiding Officer wherever he is and tender unconditional apology in the Open Court within two weeks from the date of the order and that accused Nos. 1 to 8 shall file an affidavit in the pending proceedings also.
26. It is not in dispute that there are several litigations between the parties and others, original suits, writ petitions and contempt petition, before the Civil Court and this Court. By a reading of the orders passed in 29 the original suits and orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions, there is no clarity with regard to the title of both the parties in respect of the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, no Civil Court has decided the rights, title and interest of any of the parties, till today. The trial Court granted temporary injunction while allowing I.A.2 on 17.3.2009 made in O.S.16/2009 against the defendant, i.e., the present petitioner, who admittedly in para-3 of the writ petition has stated that the Methodist Church is in existence in India for more than 150 years; that the name of the church has been changed twice; it was formerly known as the Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia (MECSA) and Methodist Church in Southern Asia (MCSA); the Methodish Church in Southern Asia was registered at Bombay on 20th May, 1942 under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, it is clear that the injunction granted against the defendant- petitioner restraining the persons acting on behalf of the 2nd defendant. If the petitioner claims any right, title, 30 interest under the 2nd defendant in the said suit in respect of the property in question, the injunction granted by the trial Court is also binding on the petitioner. If the petitioner does not claim any right under the 2nd defendant and he is agitating his rights independently, then the injunction granted by the trial Court may not affect his right, title and interest in establishing the same before the competent Civil Court.
27. The materials on record also disclose that the very petitioner filed I.A.4 in O.S.16/2009 for impleading under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC., which came to be rejected on 17.3.2009, I.A.8 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the said suit. The same came to be rejected on 12.6.2009 specifically observing as follows:
"I have perused the cause title of the Third Party Applicant in I.A.No.8. In I.A.No.8, the cause title of the Third Party Applicant is as follows:
The Executive Board of Methodist Church in India, A registered trust represented by the District 31 Superintendent -
Rev. Alexander Seimon, Age: 56 years, Occ: Service, R/o Methodist Mission Compound Court road, Belgaum.
I also perused the cause title of the Third Party Applicant in I.A.No.4. In I.A.No.4., the cause title of the Third Party Applicant is as under:
"The Methodist Church in India, Trust Association, South India Regional Conference, Represented by its District Superintendent, Rev.Alexander SEimon, Age: Major, Occ: Service, R/o Mission Compound, Belgaum.
The Third Party Applicant stated in his affidavit to I.A.No.8 that due to technical problem, he is filing this I.A.No.8. After perusal of bundle of documents produced by the Third Party Applicant, I could not find the nexus of these Churches to one another. Except oral say of the Third Party Applicant, no authenticated document is produced to establish the nexus among these churches."
28. It is also not in dispute that the very petitioner filed I.As. XI and XII before the trial Court in 32 O.S.No.16/2009 for a direction to keep the plaintiff - Laxmikanth Vishnu Kulkarni along with Election ID Card, PAN Card, Ration Card, Pension Book, etc. The said application came to be rejected on 1.10.2010. It is also not in dispute that the third party has filed an application - I.A.22 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the applicants as proposed plaintiffs making allegations against the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. The said application came to be rejected on 18.4.2012 with costs of Rs.3,000/-. Again I.A.23 was filed by the Third Party Executive Board of Methodist Church in India under Order XVIII Rule 18 of CPC in the said suit for conducting inspection of all the suit properties which came to be rejected on 18.4.2012.
29. In view of the events stated above, it is clear that the petitioner failed to establish his interest in respect of the property in question and there is no specific order passed either by the Civil Court or this Court to protect his interest. In the absence of any material document to show prima facie that it is in 33 possession of the properties in question, the very writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notices issued by the 3rd respondent-Police Inspector is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
30. Though the learned Senior Counsel, Smt. Pramila Nesargi places reliance on the orders dated 8th October, 2007 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18490/2006 against the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner with regard to RTC entries, the same was allowed and the matter was remanded which was the subject matter in Writ Appeal No. 1974/2007. The Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 19th November, 2008 disposed of the writ appeal and directed the Deputy Commissioner to hear the appellant therein-respondent No.4 herein and pass fresh orders in accordance with law which is final and conclusive.
31. It is also not in dispute that the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.112324/2015 before this Court 34 against the order dated 17.3.2009 and 25.4.2009 on I.As. 2 and 7 in O.S.No. 16/2009. This Court by its order dated 30th October, 2015 disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the 4th respondent to make complaint or furnish information to the police as and when any person belonging to respondent No.5/defendant No.2 - The Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia (D.20), Robinson Memorial, Byculla, Mumbai, represented by its Chairman/Secretary to makes an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and if such a complaint is made, the police is directed to give protection to the 4th respondent from illegal interference by the 5th respondent therein. Admittedly, the said order was challenged by the very petitioner before this Court in Writ Appeal No. 100825/2015 and the Division Bench of this Court on 8th December, 2015 has dismissed the same as withdrawn.
32. On the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division 35 Bench as stated supra, the present notice issued by the 3rd respondent-Police Officer directing the petitioner to obey the order passed by this Court. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the notice issued, he could have very well approached the 3rd respondent by producing any other documents/Court orders said to have been passed to protect its right, if it is in possession. Instead of approaching the concerned respondent/authority by producing material documents to prove his possession on the basis of the Court orders, the petitioner has approached this Court. Therefore, the very approach by the petitioner by filing the writ petition is not maintainable. The 3rd respondent has only issued notice directing the petitioner to obey the orders passed by this Court as stated supra. The same is in accordance with law and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
33. Be that as it may. It is suffice to observe that this Court has not decided the rights of the parties in 36 respect of the properties in question entering into merits of the case.
34. However, it is for the Civil Court to decide the rights between the parties and if any decree to be passed by the Civil Court between the parties, it is always binding on the parties to the lis, Revenue Authorities as well as the jurisdictional Police Officer to implement the same.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-