Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1765 (MAD)

D. Dinesh Kumar v. M. S. Samuel

2010-04-13

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 29.10.2009, made in I.A.No.344 of 2009, in O.S.No.134 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambur. 2. The petitioners had filed a suit, in O.S.No.134 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambur, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, who are the respondents herein, and their men and agents from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful Sunday Service and prayers in the Church, described in the schedule to the plaint. 3. It had been stated that the petitioners are Lutheran Christians, who are residing in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony at Ambur. They are members of Immanuel Lutheran Church, Ambur, established by the Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church. In the year, 1987, the petitioners and certain other members of the Christian community living in the locality had joined together and started an extension Ministry of Immanuel Lutheran Church, in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony. The Pastors from the main Church have been conducting the Sunday Services, regularly, from the year, 1987. The Church, which was a small hut, in the beginning, had been built into a concrete structure and named as `Naether Memorial Lutheran Church and it was dedicated, on 2.10.2008, by the President and the officials of the Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church. 4. It has been further stated that nearly 35 Christian families from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony and about 25 Christian Families residing outside the Colony were attending the Sunday Services at the Church, every week, between 6.00 p.m and 9.00 p.m. The Sunday Services were being conducted, peacefully, for the past 20 years. While so, an election had been held to the Church Committee, on 4.1.2009. The office bearers had been elected, unanimously, in the presence of Rev.B.G.S.Rajkumar, Pastor-in-Charge, deputed by the Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church. Some of the petitioners have also been elected as office bearers. 5. While so, the respondents, who are also Lutheran Christians, had joined with some other persons, under the leadership of the second respondent, to demand separate Sunday Services for them. The office bearers of the Church Committee had refused to accept their request for separate Sunday Services. Some of the petitioners have also been elected as office bearers. 5. While so, the respondents, who are also Lutheran Christians, had joined with some other persons, under the leadership of the second respondent, to demand separate Sunday Services for them. The office bearers of the Church Committee had refused to accept their request for separate Sunday Services. On 27.2.2009, the respondents, along with some miscreants, had trespassed into the Church, by breaking open the church gate and had erected two sign boards under a new banner, with the name `Tamil Nadu Housing Board Society. Thereafter, the respondents had prevented the petitioners and others from participating and conducting the Sunday Services. Though the police and the revenue officials had arranged several peace committee meetings, the respondents had refused to attend the regular Sunday Services being conducted at the Church. They had insisted that the petitioners should not be allowed to conduct the Sunday Services. On 27.9.2009, they had prevented the Sunday Services being conducted by the petitioners and the petitioners were asked to vacate the Church. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed the suit, in O.S.No.134 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambur. 6. The petitioners had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.344 of 2009, in O.S.No.134 of 2009, praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners conducting the Sunday Services in the schedule mentioned Church, till the disposal of the suit. However, the learned District Munsif, Ambur, by his order, dated 29.10.2009, had disposed of the interlocutory application with a direction stating that neither the respondents, nor the petitioners shall interfere with the peaceful conduct of the Sunday Services of each other, till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners had preferred the present civil revision petition before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had stated that the order passed by the Court below is perverse, as it is against the weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The Court below had failed to see that the Sunday Services were being conducted by the petitioners, peacefully, for the past 20 years. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had stated that the order passed by the Court below is perverse, as it is against the weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The Court below had failed to see that the Sunday Services were being conducted by the petitioners, peacefully, for the past 20 years. The learned District Munsif had erred in passing an order permitting the respondents to conduct separate Sunday services when the petitioners are already conducting such services, regularly. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to R5 had submitted that only an appeal would lie against the order, dated 29.10.2009, made in I.A.No.344 of 2009, in O.S.No.134 of 2009, according to Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners before this Court, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable in law. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioners, in the present civil revision petition, cannot be granted, at this stage. The petitioners ought to have invoked Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by filing an appeal, as provided therein. The petitioners have not been in a position to show that extraordinary circumstances have arisen in the present case, for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the learned District Munsif Court, Ambur, dated 29.10.2009, made in I.A.No.344 of 2009, in O.S.No.134 of 2009, by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, the Civil Revision petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.