Karnataka High Court
Rev.D.Arul Alexander vs Gethesemane Lutheran Church on 20 February, 2014
-1-
M.F.A. No.858/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.858 OF 2014 (CPC)
BETWEEN :
REV. D ARUL ALEXANDER
RESIDING AT PASTOR'S PARSONAGE
(PASTER RESIDENT)
(ILEC) NO.1, PLAT FORM ROAD
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE 560 020
NOW PASTER OF TRINITY LUTHERAN
CHURCH, (ILEC) MARIKUPPAN
KOLAR GOLD FIELD
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 011 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GETHESEMANE LUTHERAN CHURCH
(ILEC) NO.1, PLAT FORM ROAD
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS:
1. SRI A RAJAMANICKAM
S/O SRI ANNAMALAI (LATE)
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. SRI S JOHN SUNDARAM
S/O SRI SWAMY DASS (LATE)
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
-2-
M.F.A. No.858/2014
3. SRI J THEODRE
S/O SRI JOSEPH P DAVID
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
1 TO 3 ARE OFFICE BEARERS OF
RESPONDENT CHURCH AS THE PRESIDENT
SECRETARY & TREASURER 560 020
4. SRI PAUL SUNDER
SECRETARY / TREASURER
IELS TRUST ASSOCIATION
S/O KARUTHUDAYAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEW STREET
CHITHAMBARA NAGAR
NAGARKOIL
KANAYA KUMARI DISTRICT-629 001
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER
REV. R SOLOMON PASTOR
S/O SRI RATHINAM
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 911,
LUTHERAN MISSION COMPOUND
S T BLOCK, OORGAUM POST
KOLAR GOLD FIELD,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563 011
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(d) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED: 07.01.2014 PASSED IN MISC NO.
25057/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
APPLICATION FILED U/O 9 RULE 13 OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
M.F.A. No.858/2014
JUDGMENT
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
Heard. This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 07.01.2014 passed in Misc. No.25057/2011 by the Court of the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore. It is stated that the aforesaid Misc. Petition was filed U/O 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As could be seen from para 22 of the impugned order, the trial Court, on consideration of the matter, has dismissed the Misc. Petition on the ground that it was not maintainable as the decree in O.S. No.25889/2010 was a compromise decree and not an exparte decree. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order to warrant interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. Nos.1 & 2/2014 do not survive for consideration; they also stand dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BNS