Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1270 (PAT)

Rev. H. S. C. Nag. v. Vijay Christophar Stuart

1999-12-01

NAGENDRA RAI

body1999
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The defendants are the petitioner and they have filed the present application against the order dated 6.7.1999, passed by the 5th Subordinate Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, rejecting their application challenging the jurisdiction of the court at Hajipur to try the suit. 3. The plaintiff-opposite party filed suit for declaration that the election held on 18.4.1999 of the Christ Church, Patna, is illegal and the constitution of Pastorate Committee by the defendants-petitioners is illegal and void and the said Committee has no right to function as Pastorate Committee of the Church. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from functioning as Pastorate Committee. 4. According to the plaintiff, the Christ Church, situated at Bankipur, in the town of Patna, serves the purposes of Church of North India (for short C.N.I.) through Synod Diocese and Pastorate and the plaintiff is a communicant member of the Christ Church for the last 20 years. It is further stated that the said C.N.I. through its Constitution and Bye- laws performs its work and day to day activities through the Pastorate Committee at the Pastorate level, through the Dicocesan Council at the Dicocesan level and through the Synod at the Synod level. The Church at Patna falls under the territorial jurisdiction of Diocese of Patna as per Schedule-1 of the Constitution of C.N.I. and the objections and the objects and purposes of the Pastorate is to proclaim the message of Christ to the plaintiff, his family and others at Hajipur and as such the Hajipur court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was further stated that the petitioner no.1, who is defendant no.1 in the suit, was the Presbyter Incharge of Christ Church, Patna, retired in 1994, but he wrongfully got defendants no.2 to 7 elected as members of the Pastorate Committee for the year 1999-2000. The said election is void and illegal. 5. The defendants appeared and filed a petition that the Hajipur Court has no jurisdiction as the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna Court. 6. The learned 5th Subordinate Judge, by the impugned order, has held that he has jurisdiction to try the suit and, accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Admittedly, the defendants are the residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna district. 6. The learned 5th Subordinate Judge, by the impugned order, has held that he has jurisdiction to try the suit and, accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Admittedly, the defendants are the residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna district. It is also admitted that the election, which has been challenged in the suit, was held within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna district. The only question for consideration is as to whether the suit is to tried in the court falling within the Patna District or Hajipur Court has also jurisdiction to try the suit only on the assertion made on behalf of the plaintiff that he is the Communicant Member of the said Christ Church. 8. The cause of action means bundle of facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove his case in the suit. It has no relevancy to the defence set up by the defendants. 9. In the present case, the cause of action in the suit, which has been filed to challenge the election, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna Court as the said election was held within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna district. No doubt, the plaintiff is the communicant member of that Church and he resides at Hajipur, but on that ground, it cannot be said that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Hajipur. The learned Subordinate Judge has committed jurisdictional error in holding that the Hajipur court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Subordinate Judge is set aside and it is held that the Hajipur Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 10. In the result, this application stands allowed.