Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.
P. Sampath Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
India Minnonite Brethern Church Nagarkurnool Regd No. 430/2016 – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1694 of 2024
Decided On : 05-07-2024
For the Petitioner: Vijay B. Paropakari.
For the Respondent: M.C. Adi Murthy.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the expiration of a term does not automatically render an election petition infructuous if there are ongoing disputes regarding the legitimacy of the elected bodies.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure - Election Petition - CPC Section 151 - The court interpreted Section 151 of the CPC to determine the maintainability of the election petition, concluding that the cause of action had not ceased despite the expiration of the term of the self-declared elected body.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 151 of the CPC to dismiss an election petition as infructuous, arguing that the term of the self-declared elected body had expired. The respondents contended that the election petition remained valid and maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition was not infructuous as there were unresolved issues regarding the legitimacy of the self-declared elected body and the continuation of the previous executive body.
Issues: Whether the election petition had become infructuous due to the expiration of the term of the self-declared elected body.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expiration of the term did not extinguish the cause of action, as the validity of the self-declared elected body and the actions taken during its tenure required adjudication.
Result: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2024 in I.A. No. 88 of 2024 in E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order) passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Nagarkurnool (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Trial Court’), the petitioners have preferred the present Revision to set aside the impugned order, wherein the petition filed by them under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022, was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the revision petitioners to file the present revision, are that the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 88 of 2024 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 as infructuous. The brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A. No. 88 of 2024 are as under:
(a) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 to declare the impugned self declared elected body of the respondent Nos.3 to 24 dated 12.03.2022 as illegal, null and void. As per the bare reading of election petition, it was projected mainly that a self declared elected body was came in existence and the tenure of the said body will be of two years from 12.03.2022 to 12.03.2024 as per the bye law mentioned in the petition.
(b) The original petition has inherent, incurable defects in institution itself. No document is filed that is to be declared as null and void as prayed in prayer which fact also conformed and authenticated by PW1, who is the petitioner and PW2 is witness.
(c) The respondents failed to describe the petitioner designation in the main election petition by virtue of the said facts and circumstances, the main election petition has became infructuous. As per the pleadings, the tenure of the self declared elected body would complete by the date of 12.03.2022 according to the petition. Hence, the continuation of the cause of action and there cannot be any scope of getting executable decree. The main election petition became infructuous and the respondents cannot maintain and run the proceedings in view of passing of time by crossing the due date of 12.03.2024 as per the main election petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022.
4. In reply to the petition, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter, the brief averments of which are as under:
(a) The petition is not maintainable as the deponent in the petition designated himself as General Secretary of Indian Mennonite Brotheren Church @ MB Church at Door No. 16-27, MB Mission Church, Nallavelly Road, Nagarkurnool Town and District is not correct. There is no church by name Indian Mennonite Brotheren Church @ MB Church at Mission compound existing in Nagarkurnool Town and District. In fact, the word alias is used to call an individual by sufficing other names and no registration authority will allow any society to have two names for one society. No authorisation is filed by the petitioner for the petition. The self declared elected body of IOMB church @ MB Church, Nagarkurnool is no way concerned with the administration of IMB Church situated at the premises No. 27, Nallavelly Road, Nagarkurnool Town and District.
(b) The Executive body of the church counsel for the term 2020-2022 which was existing as on the date of instituting the present case is still existing and the pastor of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool is conducting the spiritual proceedings as per the orders of the Court dated 29.04.2022 in I.A. No. 38 of 2022 in EOP No. 1 of 2022. Moreover, as per the resolution dated 06.03.2022 passed by the church in the main petition, the elections to the executive body of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool were adjourned for awaiting the outcome of the order in EOP No. 4 of 2020 and also for updating the voters list as no voters list was readily available to conduct the elections.
(c) When the question of exist
