Madras High Court
G.Alex Benziger vs The Parish Council Of ... on 19 November, 2014
Author: M.Duraiswamy
Bench: M.Duraiswamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.11.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.(MD)(PD).No.2359 of 2014
1. G.Alex Benziger
2. S.P.Winston ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs/
Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Parish Council of Maravankudyiruppu,
Thesnevis Matha Church,
represented by its Parish Priest,
Fr.Jesudhasan Thomas.
2. Inbasagaran
3. David Appathurai
4. Thomas Xavier
5. Y.Rymond
6. The R.C.Diocese of Kottar,
represented by the Treasurer,
Bishop's House,
Asaripallam Road,
Nagercoil-629 001.
7. The Bishop of Kottar
Bishop's House,
Asaripallam Road,
Nagercoil-629 002. ... Respondents 1 to 7/
Defendants/Respondents
8. D.Mercyling Babu
9. S.Edwin
10. J.Jas Ligorin ... Respondents 8 to 7 not a parties
in O.S.No;195 of 2011/
Proposed Respondents 8 to 10/
Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the I
Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil made in I.A.No.255 of 2013 in
O.S.No.195 of 2011.
!For Petitioners : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh
:ORDER
Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.255 of 2013 in O.S.No.195 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, the plaintiffs have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.195 of 2011 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the suit church. The said suit is being contested by the defendants. When the suit was taken up for trial, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.255 of 2013 to implead the proposed respondents 8 to 10 in the suit stating that they are the office bearers of the first defendant church. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that the proposed parties are not necessary parties for conducting the present suit for the reason that the present suit has been filed for bare injunction.
4. On a perusal of the plaint averments, it is clear that the plaintiffs have not stated anything as against the proposed respondents. When it is a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the church, the proposed respondents are not necessary parties, when there is no specific allegation or averment made against them in the plaint. The persons who actually involved in the demolition of building are only necessary parties. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. Since the suit is pending since 2011, I direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.195 of 2011 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19.11.2014 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No ssl To The I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. M.DURAISWAMY,J.
ssl C.R.P.(MD)(PD).No.2359 of 2014 19.11.2014