Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Adi Penthecosthe Sathya Sabhai, Rep. by its Sole Trustee & Administrator – Petitioner
Versus
V.T. Alexander – Respondent
C.R.P. NPD (MD) Nos. 496 of 2014 & 497 of 2014
Decided On : 01-04-2015
Civil Procedure Code - Order 21 - Rule 32 - Relief of permanent injunction – Claim of compensation - Plaintiff on file of District Munsif Court is revision petitioner in both revisions - Plaintiff had filed a suit for a relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant and their men from interfering with or causing inconvenience for day-to-day administration and its branch churches sole trustee and Administrator - Said suit was resisted by defendant by filing his written statement - After elaborate trial and evidence suit was decreed - In suit defendant also had filed counter claim – Therefore while granting decree in favor of plaintiff a decree was also passed in favor of first defendant permitting him to reside in plaintiff and defendant can take part in prayers subject to rules and conditions – Held, Admittedly defendant has been living only in Trivandrum - It is not his case that he has taken shelter or refuge in Church - But he has been President and conducting prayers and meeting in capacity of President - Having voluntarily expelled himself from plaintiffs by not following rules of Church defendant himself has denied benefits of decree – Therefore Execution Court was wrong in holding that plaintiff had willfully disobeyed decree - E.P is filed under Order 21 Rule 32 of code of Civil Procedure for detaining plaintiff in civil prison to enforce decree passed against them - Provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure are extremely penal - Therefore when provisions are so severe against judgment debtor contemnor it is duty of Court to construe Rule strictly and Court which passes orders under Rule must act strictly in accordance with provisions of Rule - In enforcement of decree two conditions have to be established by decree holder - When plaintiff had opportunity of obeying decree has willfully failed to obey then decree may be enforced by detaining party in civil prison – Therefore first condition is opportunity to obey - In case on hand though defendant was given right of residence and permission for prayer without any act of plaintiff he has been qualified to have benefits of decree by virtue of his own conduct – Therefore question of opportunity to obey decree does not arise - Then comes question of willful disobedience of decree - When opportunity itself was not available to plaintiff question of willful disobedience also is not available - Unless both conditions are satisfied Court which has got discretionary power cannot order detention - Impugned order is bad in view of fact that Court which had to exercise discretion judiciously had failed to apply its mind - In such circumstances this Court is of considered view that defendant had lost opportunity to enforce decree granted in his favor and there is no disobedience committed by plaintiff - Civil Revision Petitions are allowed
1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders passed in E.P.No.29 of 2013 and E.A.No.78 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.124 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.A.No.124 of 2004 for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men from interfering with or causing inconvenience for the day-to-day administration of the Adhi Penthecosthe Sathiya Sabhai (beginning Pentecostal Truth Church), Malavilai and its branch churches by Sadhu C.Selvaraj, the sole trustee and Administrator.
3. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing his written statement.
4. After elaborate trial and evidence, the suit was decreed on 31/10/2006.
5. In the suit, the defendant also had filed counter claim. Therefore, while granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff, a decree was also passed in favour of the first defendant permitting him to reside in the plaintiff Sabha and the defendant can take part in the prayers, subject to the rules and conditions of the Sabha.
6. Aggrieved by the allowing of the counter claim, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram and the defendant also preferred Cross-Appeal No.5 of 2007 aggrieved by the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, on 6/10/2007, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the cross- appeal filed by the defendant.
7. Not satisfied with that, the defendant had filed S.A.No.114 of 2008 on the file of this Court and this Court, on 6/2/2012 had passed the following judgment:-
“The Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court with regard to relief of injunction sought for in original Suit No.124 of 2004 are confirmed. Likewise the Judgment and decree granted in respect of counterclaim by the trial Court are restore. However it is made clear that the appellant / first defendant is entitled to take part in prayer subject to rules and conditions of the Sabha mentioned in the plaint and he is also entitled to reside in the portion in which he is residing and the plaintiff should not cause disturbance to him with regard to take part in prayer as well as residing in a portion of the Church building. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
8. As the second Appellate Court had restored the decree of the trial Court, entitling the defendant to have right of residence and for taking part in the prayer, the defendant tried to gain entry into the Church building. According to the defendant, in spite of the specific decree by this Court, he was not allowed to reside in the portion of the Church building and also he was not allowed to take part in the Church prayers. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had violated the decree for injunction granted by this Court. It was alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff had put up barbed wire fence and granite walls to prevent him from entering the prayer hall of the Church and the plaintiff also kept the gates always closed and instructed their security personnels not to allow the defendant into the Church.
9. The defendant also sent a notice to the plaintiff on 23/1/2013, requesting them to allow access to the prayer hall of the Church and allow him to reside in the portion of the Church building. The plaintiff also had given a reply to the same. The defendant had preferred a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kulasekaram. As the plaintiff had disobeyed the order of the Court, the defendant had filed E.P.No.29 of 2013 under Order 21 Rule 32 for an order of detention of the plaintiff in the civil prison and along with that filed E.A.No.78 of 2013 for Police protection.
10. The said petition and application were resisted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the defendant is bound by the rules and regulations of the Church as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
