Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 530 (GAU)

Assemblies of God of East India v. Nzio Ezung

2020-05-27

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2020
JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the sole respondent, assisted by Ms. Nukshinaro, learned counsel. 2. This is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directed against the order dated 15.02.2019 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Wokha passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 01/2018 in reference to the Civil Suit No. 03/2017. 3. The credential of the respondent who was serving as ordained Minister of Assemblies of God Church East India at Wokha Town was suspended for a period of 1 (one) year due to his alleged indulgence in unscriptural practices while performing his duties as Minister, as per Article 10, Section 2 Para A of the Constitution of the organisation, and the same was conveyed to him through a letter dated 11.05.2017 by the General Secretary of the Assemblies of God of East India. Being aggrieved by the order suspending his credentials, the respondent filed a Civil Suit before the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Wokha which was registered as Civil Suit No. 03/2017. Along with the suit he also filed an application praying for injunction. In the Misc. Application ad-interim injunction was granted by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 3.8.2017. However, on an application filed by the petitioners herein who were defendants in the suit, the interim order was vacated. Aggrieved by the order vacating the interim order, the respondent filed an appeal in the court of learned District Judge, Wokha which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 04/2017. The same was disposed off vide order dated 23.02.2018, wherein the appeal was dismissed. The respondent, thereafter, came before this Court challenging the same through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same was registered as W.P.(C) No. 53(K) of 2018. After hearing the parties, this Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 14.09.2018, declining to interfere with the judgment of the learned District Judge. While further proceedings of the suit was going on, the petitioners herein filed a Civil Misc. Case before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Wokha praying for restraining the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit from acting as a Reverend or Pastor in the Assemblies of God Church, Wokha Town. While further proceedings of the suit was going on, the petitioners herein filed a Civil Misc. Case before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Wokha praying for restraining the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit from acting as a Reverend or Pastor in the Assemblies of God Church, Wokha Town. The same was registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 01/2018. On the day it was moved, in the interim, the respondent was restrained from acting as Reverend and also restrained from taking up services in the AG Church, Wokha Town. The learned Civil Judge, further restrained the respondent from entering the premises of the AG Church, Wokha Town in order to prevent escalation of tension between the parties till further order. The Civil Misc. Case was finally disposed of on 15.02.2019 after hearing both the parties at length but by modifying the interim order. The operative part of the order reads as follows; "1. The interim order dated 14.12.2018 is modified to the extent that the plaintiff Mr. Nzio Ezung is not restricted from entering into the premises of the AG Church, Wokha Town or worshipping therein. The restraining order against him is this vacated till further orders. 2. However, in view of the order dt. 14.9.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court, the plaintiff is restrained from acting as Reverend and/or taking service in the AG Church, Wokha Town. To allow him to act as Reverend and/or taking service would not only defeat the very purpose of this trial, but it would also be a grave exercise in judicial indiscipline to ignore the orders of the higher Court. The question of whether 'Pastorship' and 'Reverendship' are two distinct entities is a subject matter of trial and would be dealt into subsequently. Till then, the plaintiff Mr. Nzio Ezung shall restrain himself from taking up the role of Reverend/Pastor. Thus, while he is allowed to enter the Church and worship along with the congregation, he shall restrain himself from ministering to the congregation till such time the issue of his Reverendship is resolved. 3. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to meet the ends of justice, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court u/s-151 CPC, this Court orders status quo as on 14.09.2018. All actions taken subsequent to the order dated 14.09.2018 is hereby stayed till further orders. 3. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to meet the ends of justice, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court u/s-151 CPC, this Court orders status quo as on 14.09.2018. All actions taken subsequent to the order dated 14.09.2018 is hereby stayed till further orders. In order to avoid confusion, this order of status quo applies to both the parties. 4. It is a matter of record that the two parties had brought out two separate programs during Christmas and two service was held simultaneously on 01.12.2018 which is not denied by either parties. Such 'factional divide' and 'worship' cannot coexist. Hence, to avoid any future clashes, an interim arrangement is made in this regard. The members or supporters of the plaintiff (Party A) shall have their Sunday Devotional service from 9:00 am to 11:00 am every Sunday at the AG Church Wokha Town. The members or supporters of the defendants (Party B) shall have their Sunday Devotional service from 12:00 pm-02:00 pm every Sunday at the AG Church Wokha Town. Both parties may install an interim Pastor/Reverend to minister to them and lead the congregation till such time the difference are finally resolved. At the cost of repetition, the plaintiff shall exercise due restraint from acting as Reverend/Pastor and ministering to either of the congregation till disposal of the case. The above timings shall be strictly followed and complied with. The above orders are passed without prejudice to either of the parties. Needless to say, it is only interim in nature and subject to the outcome of the trial. Should there be any further development which changes the existing situation, this Court shall be apprised of the same. The parties may approach the court for any clarification. Learned counsel, Mr. K. Zhimomi for the defendant craved leave of the Court as he had to return to Dimapur. Hence, this order passed in their absence. B/A to furnish copy of this order to the parties without delay. This disposes I/A01/2018. It is hoped that both the parties will conduct themselves in a way that is becoming of clergymen and men of God and as followers of Jesus Christ, as they so claim and honour the procedure established by law. Issues in the main suit will be framed on the next date in the presence of both the parties. It is hoped that both the parties will conduct themselves in a way that is becoming of clergymen and men of God and as followers of Jesus Christ, as they so claim and honour the procedure established by law. Issues in the main suit will be framed on the next date in the presence of both the parties. List on 14.03.2019 for issues/documents. Copy of this order be furnished to the District Administration for information." Aggrieved by the above stated order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Wokha, the petitioners are before this Court through the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Zhirnomi submitted that at the very early stage of the suit, the respondent who is plaintiff in the suit by filing a Misc. Application had prayed for an injunction against the order issued by the Assemblies of God of East India suspending his credentials as a Reverend, but the same was rejected by the trial court. And, the appeal before the learned District Judge was also rejected and this High Court had also upheld the order passed by the learned trial court and the District Judge. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) passed on 15.02.2019 which has allowed the respondent to enter the premises of the A.G Church, Wokha Town and also lead his own group of people in conducting Sunday devotional services would amount to nullifying the earlier order passed by the same learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the order passed by the learned District Judge and this High Court upholding the same. As such, the impugned order is an order passed without jurisdiction or beyond jurisdiction, which calls for interference of this Court. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that after the order suspending the credentials of the respondent was issued, by a Resolution dated 25.09.2018 of appropriate authority of the Assemblies of God of East India he has been ex-communicated from the organisation or church body. And this order passed in furtherance of the suspension order has not been under challenge in the original suit. Therefore, the respondent who is no longer a member of the church of AGEI could not have been allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) to enter the church and conduct devotional services with a few supporters of his own. And this order passed in furtherance of the suspension order has not been under challenge in the original suit. Therefore, the respondent who is no longer a member of the church of AGEI could not have been allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) to enter the church and conduct devotional services with a few supporters of his own. Moreover, the fact that the ex-communication order is not under challenge in the Civil Suit, the learned Civil Judge could not have assumed the jurisdiction to pass such order.; 6. Lastly, Mr. Zhimomi submitted that the suit itself has become infructuous since the suspension period is over and further order has been passed, therefore, the order impugned herein is illegal on the face of the record. 7. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petition is not maintainable because, in the first place, the petition under section 151 of CPC before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) was filed by the petitioners themselves and the impugned order was passed as deemed fit by the learned Civil Judge after considering the relevant facts and circumstances in existence at that relevant time. Just because the order was not passed in their favour does not make the same illegal. Mr. C.T. Jamir also submitted that the act of ex-communicating the respondent by the petitioners was in violation of the principle of natural justice and, the constitution and bye laws of the organisation itself. Therefore, the Civil Court could not have allowed the prayer of the petitioners to prevent the respondent from entering the church to have devotion and join in fellowship with the other believers. As such, the learned Civil Judge was not at fault in having passed the impugned order by which the respondent and his supporters are allowed to worship in the same church. The learned counsel went further and submitted also that before such order of ex-communication was passed the respondent ought to have been given a chance of being heard. 8. The learned Sr. counsel also submitted that this High Court has not adjudicated on the merit of the case but merely upheld the judgment of the District Judge by making some observations which at best was in the form of obiter dictum. 8. The learned Sr. counsel also submitted that this High Court has not adjudicated on the merit of the case but merely upheld the judgment of the District Judge by making some observations which at best was in the form of obiter dictum. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge is not bar from passing such order in the interest of justice, and hence, interference of this Court is not call for. In support of the above submissions made, the learned Sr. Counsel referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in two cases. The citations and the paragraphs of the judgments referred to are reproduced here below; (i) Surya Devi Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 , para-39. "39. Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straitjacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often the High Court would be faced with dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where 'a stitch in time would save nine'. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge." (ii) Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 , para-25 & 27. "25. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional scheme. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 , para-25 & 27. "25. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional scheme. There is no parallel system of King's Court in India and of all other courts having limited jurisdiction subject to supervision of King's Court. Courts are set up under the Constitution or the laws. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression "inferior court" is not referable to judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order in paras 26 and 27 quoted above. 27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226". 9. I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels in the light of the facts and circumstances and the law applicable. From the record and submissions of the learned counsels, the following facts has clearly emerged; (i) That the credentials of the respondent were suspended for a year w.e.f 11.5.2017. (ii) That after the suspension, the respondent was ex-communicated from the AGEI by are solution of the appropriate authority taken on 25.09.2018. From the record and submissions of the learned counsels, the following facts has clearly emerged; (i) That the credentials of the respondent were suspended for a year w.e.f 11.5.2017. (ii) That after the suspension, the respondent was ex-communicated from the AGEI by are solution of the appropriate authority taken on 25.09.2018. (iii) That the suit registered as Civil Suit No. 3/2017 was filed challenging the suspension order only and not the ex-communication order which was the final order of the organisation saying that the respondent is no longer a member of the organisation. (iv) That the prayer of the respondent who is plaintiff in the suit asking for injunction against the order of suspension was considered by the learned trial court and rejected and the same was upheld by the learned District Judge and this High Court. 10. From the above stated facts, gathered from the submissions of both the learned counsels and the record, it appears that the respondent has no longer locus to make any interim prayer to give the learned trial court the jurisdiction to pass such order impugned herein. The fact that the petitioners had gone further from the passing of the suspension order to the extent of passing a resolution ex-communicating the respondent from the organisation and the fact that such order or resolution has not been challenged by him shows that the learned Civil Judge no longer has the jurisdiction to pass such order (the impugned order). Further, allowing the respondents to enter the church of the organisation and conduct worship services with few of like-minded persons would mean allowing him to do something which he has not been permitted to do by the same Court which was upheld by the District Court and this High Court in the earlier proceeding. As such, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not only exceeded its jurisdiction but also committed error on the face of the record while passing the impugned order. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) is directed to hear the matter afresh and decide according to law. The learned Civil Judge is further directed that the original suit should also berried on fast track and dispose it off at the earliest. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) is directed to hear the matter afresh and decide according to law. The learned Civil Judge is further directed that the original suit should also berried on fast track and dispose it off at the earliest. Since, the dispute is within the same faith, the learned trial court may also try to resolve the same through A-D-R.