IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Appellate Court should not exceed its jurisdiction and interfere with the Trial Court's exercise of discretion without finding any perversity or gross irregularity warranting interference.

JUDGMENT

1. This Second Appeal under Order 3 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 2014 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgment dated 03.02.2021, passed by the Judge, District Council Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2020.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellants who are members of the Umran Dairy Presbyterian Church, Ri Bhoi District, were compelled to institute a suit before the District Council Court when differences and disputes arose with the respondent over the control and management of the church. The said title suit was registered as Title Suit No. 16 of 2020, and was filed along with a Misc. Case being Misc. Case No. 16 of 2020, for grant of temporary injunction. The learned Sub-Ordinate District Council Court on being prima facie satisfied, by order dated 03.08.2020, was pleased to pass an order of adinterim injunction, firstly, restraining the respondent from entering into and interfering with the administration and management of the church and secondly, that the opposite party/respondent was to immediately stop issuing threats or restrict the petitioners and other members of the church from using the Church Graveyard, the Church as well as the School. The respondent against the said ad-interim injunction order preferred an appeal before the Judge, District Council Court who by judgment and order dated 03.02.2021, quashed and set aside the order dated 03.08.2020. Aggrieved by the order of the Lower Appellate Court, the appellants are before this court by way of the instant appeal.

3. Considering the nature of the dispute and the points involved herein, this Court is disposing of this matter at the stage of admission hearing itself. The counsel for the appellants has also filed the substantial questions of law that are to be taken into consideration at the time of hearing this appeal and the same are reproduced hereinbelow:

a) Whether the Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and acted arbitrarily in deciding the issue for grant of temporary injunction finally when the appeal was filed only against ex-parte ad-interim order passed by the Trial Court?

b) Whether the Appellate Court, without any finding as to the perversity of the ad interim injunction order granted by the trial court, could have decided the petition for grant of temporary injunction when the respondent has not even filed his show cause?

c) Whether the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction in going into the merits of the case akin to a mini trial while deciding the appeal which is limited to the question as to whether the ad interim injunction granted by the trial court is proper or not?

d) Whether the Appellate Court has committed gross irregularity in coming to a finding that the appellant own and possess the Church building, the Graveyard and the School while deciding the issue as to whether the trial court was correct in granting the ex-parte interim injunction?

4. The counsel for the appellants, Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel submits that disputes arose in the year 2013, between the appellants and the respondent with regard to the administration and management control of the church which resulted in many unfortunate incidents such as, weddings, church services which were disrupted and the appellants denied entry into the church. This apart, the learned Senior counsel submits in July, 2020 even the burial of the child was sought to be disallowed by the respondent in the church graveyard and it was only with the intervention of the District Administration that the same could be completed. Learned senior counsel submits that having no alternative, the Title Suit was instituted by the appellants and in the Misc. application for injunction, the Sub-Ordinate District Council Court was pleased by order dated 03.08.2020, to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction on being prima facie s