Judgment F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Ms. Bandekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. The above revision challenges the Order dated 10.07.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji, in Regular Civil Suit No. 31/2009/C whereby the application filed by the Petitioners for dismissing the suit filed by the Respondent, came to be rejected. 2. Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has pointed out that the dispute raised by the Respondent in the suit is essentially with regard to the religious services being conducted in a private premises which was earlier known as St. Anthony's Chapel and, as such, according to him, this dispute cannot be adjudicated by the Civil Court. Learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the plaint filed by the Respondent and pointed out that the grievance of the Respondent is essentially with regard to the religious services conducted in the premises and, as such, considering Canon 12.26, such religious services are within the domain of the Archbishop Petitioner No. 2. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the question of accepting that the premises belonged to the Respondent is a Chapel, cannot be accepted as, according to him, a Chapel by itself would include performing of religious services. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that as the Archbishop has withdrawn the performance of religious services in such premises, the question of saying that the Chapel is existing in the said premises is totally not justified. Learned Senior Counsel has thereafter exhaustively taken me through the prayers in the plaint and pointed out that the whole cause of action of the Respondents is that some amounts and/or donations in the course of the religious services are being appropriated by the Petitioners, which matter cannot be decided by the Civil Court. Learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the Canon 12.26 and pointed out that powers of performing religious services at a particular place is exclusively of the Archbishop and, as such, any dispute with that regard cannot be adjudicated by a Civil Court as such dispute is not of a civil nature. Learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the Canon 12.26 and pointed out that powers of performing religious services at a particular place is exclusively of the Archbishop and, as such, any dispute with that regard cannot be adjudicated by a Civil Court as such dispute is not of a civil nature. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the Respondent has no case to file the above suit and the question of seeking the reliefs sought at para (a), (b) and (c), would not arise as the Petitioners did not intend to carry out any religious services in such premises. Learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Order passed by the learned Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the Petitioners be rejected. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Bandekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel has pointed out that as per the Will executed in favour of the Respondent by the original owner of the disputed premises, there are specific obligations imposed on the Respondent to maintain the premises as well as perform religious services. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the premises belonged to the Respondent as the same has been devolved on the Respondent and, as such, the Respondent is at liberty to perform whatever activities he so desires in such premises. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petitioners are not entitled to interfere with the said premises or its functioning and, as such, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners. Learned Counsel further pointed out upon going through the impugned Order that there is no case made out for any interference in the impugned Order. When asked whether the Respondent is entitled to seek relief at prayer D and E of the plaint which specifically deals with the performance of religious services in the said premises, the learned Counsel pointed out that though such prayers D and E are concerning the religious functions the Respondents are entitled to in any event proceed with the suit for the other reliefs. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. Before I proceed to consider the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of law applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. Before I proceed to consider the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of law applicable to the facts of the present case. Law No. 1984 dated 30th May 1940, as translated reads thus : "In the name of the Nation, the National Assembly proclaims and 1 promulgate the following resolution: The National Assembly, taking notice of the texts of the Concordat and the Missionary Agreement celebrated between the Holy See and the Portuguese State..............................................Gives its approval to the Concordat and the Missionary Agreement signed in the Vatican City on 7th May of the current month by the plenipotentiaries of His Holiness Pius XII and His Excellency the President of the Portuguese republic to be published and complied with." 5. Decree-Law No. 30615 dated 25th July 1940, Article 61 reads thus : "Article 61 : The Concordat and the Missionary Agreement is in force as Portuguese municipal law." 6. Article 3 of the Concordat referred to by the learned Senior Counsel provides thus : "Article 3 of the Concordat: "The Catholic Church may organise itself freely in accordance with the norms laid down by the Canon Law and to constitute thereby associations or organisations, juridical personality whereof the State recognises. The recognition by the State of the juridical personality of the associations and corporations or religious institutes, canonically constituted, results from the simple intimation in writing to the competent authority made by the Bishop of the diocese where they have their head office, or by his legitimate representative. In case of modification or extinction the same procedure shall be followed as is followed for its constitution and the consequences shall be the same." 7. In view of the provisions of the said Concordat which is a Municipal Law and was in force in the State of Goa on 20.12.1961, the same continues to be in force by virtue of the provisions of the Goa Daman and Diu (Administration) Ordinance, 1962 which thereafter replaced by the Goa Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, which, inter alia, provides in Section 5(1) that all laws in force immediately before the appointed day in Goa Daman and Diu or any part thereof shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a competent legislation or other competent authority. The said Article of the Concordat, inter alia, clearly provides that the ecclesiastic authorities can organise itself freely in accordance with the norms laid down by the Canon Law. Hence, the said provisions of law are still in force as they have not been repealed by any corresponding legislation. 8. The relevant provisions of the Canon Law provides thus : "Can 12:23 reads thus : An oratory means a place which, by permission of the Ordinary, is set aside for divine worship, for the convenience of some community or group of the faithful who assemble there, to which however other members of the faithful may, with the consent of the competent Superior, have access. Can 12:24 reads thus : 1. The Ordinary is not to give the permission required for setting up an Oratory unless he has first, personally or through another, inspected the place destined for the oratory and found it to be becomingly arranged. 2. Once this permission has been given, the oratory cannot be converted to a secular usage without the authority of the same Ordinary. Can 12:25 reads thus : All sacred services may be celebrated in a lawfully constituted oratory, apart from those which are excluded by the law, by a provision of the local Ordinary, or by liturgical laws. Can 12:26 reads thus : The term private chapel means a place which, by permission of the local Ordinary, is set aside for divine worship for the convenience of one or more individuals. 9. On plain reading of the said provisions of the Canon Law, without the permission of the Petitioner No. 2, the question of performing any religious rites or activities even in a private chapel is not permissible. The Petitioner No. 2 has been given the exclusive rights to deal with the religious rites in any such premises. 10. In this connection, it would be relevant to observe that in a Judgment dated 16th/23rd December, 1982, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1982, this Court, (Dr. G.F. Couto, J.), has observed at Para 8 that the Ordinary of this Diocese/Archbishop, (the Petitioner No. 2 herein), has a right under the Canon Law to manage the affairs and the properties of the Church. Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1982, this Court, (Dr. G.F. Couto, J.), has observed at Para 8 that the Ordinary of this Diocese/Archbishop, (the Petitioner No. 2 herein), has a right under the Canon Law to manage the affairs and the properties of the Church. Taking note of the said observations of this Court read with Canon 12:26 referred to herein above, there is no doubt that as far as the performance of the religious services in a particular place is concerned, it is the sole prerogative of the Petitioner No. 2. Any dispute with that regard cannot be considered to be of a civil nature which can be entertained in a suit in terms of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Apex Court in a Judgment reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 2001 in the case of Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors. v. Moran Mar Marthoma & anr., has observed at Para 76(1)(a), (b) and (c), has observed thus : "76. The conclusions thus reached are: 1. (a) The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and suits. (b) The expression 'civil nature' used in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than even civil proceedings, and thus extends to such religious matters which have civil consequence. (c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is cognizable, except in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite." 11. Taking note of the observations of the Apex Court, it has been clearly held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court in terms of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code only extends to religious matters which would have civil consequences and will not include deciding matters which constitute religious rites. On perusal of the plaint, the Respondent, inter alia, seeks in Para D to restrain by a permanent injunction the Petitioners herein from stopping the religious services namely the ministry of the word celebration of the sacrament, the worship of God and the Cult of Saints in the suit chapel and so also as far as prayer E is concerned, it deals with alleged dispute in connection with the performance of religious rites in the suit premises. These reliefs purely are to claim performance of some religious rites which cannot be considered to be a dispute of a civil nature and, as such, it cannot be decided in a Civil Suit. Consequently, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant reliefs D and E as prayed for by the Respondents and, consequently, as far as prayers D and E are concerned of the plaint, such reliefs deserve to be rejected. 12. The only aspect which remains to be considered is with regard to prayers A, B and C sought by the Respondents in the plaint. The prayers, inter alia, sought by the Respondent are for recovery of some amount allegedly being deposited at the suit premises claimed to be for the purpose of maintaining such Chapel. The Respondent claims some civil consequences on account of such religious dispute and, as such, in view of the Judgment of Apex Court in Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors. v. Moran Mar Marthoma & anr. (supra), the suit cannot be said to be, prima facie, barred as far as prayers A, B and C are concerned. 13. Shri M.B. D'Costs, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has pointed out that the said observations of the Apex Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Canon Law has got a force of law in view of the said provisions referred to herein above. 14. Whether the Respondent is entitled to the said prayers A, B and C in view of the said provisions of law, is a matter which can be adjudicated only after going into the defence or the written statements of the Petitioners. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to decide such contention of Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, as it is not in dispute that these contentions have also been raised in the written statements filed by the Petitioners. As pointed out herein above, the Respondent apparently is claiming some civil consequences on account of some religious matters and, as such, the suit cannot be said to be prima facie barred as far as prayers A, B and C are concerned. The learned Judge may even examine after hearing the parties whether any preliminary issues can be raised on that count and decide in accordance with law. 15. The learned Judge may even examine after hearing the parties whether any preliminary issues can be raised on that count and decide in accordance with law. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the nature of the dispute raised by the Respondent in prayers A, B and C of the plaint, I find that as far as such prayers are concerned, the learned Judge would have to deal with such aspects on its own merits during the course of the hearing of the suit. But, however, prayers D and E of the plaint stand rejected for the reasons stated herein above. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Order passed by the learned Judge stands modified. Prayers D and E stand rejected. The learned Judge is directed to dispose of the suit on its own merits without being influenced by any observations herein above with regard to the remaining prayers in the suit after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The revision stands disposed of accordingly. Disposed off.