Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
M.G.Priyadarsini, J.
P. Sampath Kumar – Appellant
Versus
India Minnonite Brethern Church Nagarkurnool Regd No. 430/2016 – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1694 of 2024
Decided On : 05-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VIJAY B PAROPAKARI
For the Respondent: M C ADI MURTHY
Civil proceedings must continue when conflicting claims of legitimacy require resolution through full trial; expiration of tenure does not automatically render petitions infructuous.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Civil Revision Petition challenging dismissal of application to dismiss election petition as infructuous - Election petition based on declaration of self-elected body, with tenure specified from 12.03.2022 to 12.03.2024 - Court finds issues of existence of executive bodies and validity of claims require full trial. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Judicial Discretion - Court's exercise of discretionary power reviewed; dismissal of revision petition upheld as no irregularity found in lower court’s decision. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed an application citing that the election petition became infructuous after the specified tenure of the self-elected body expired. Respondents countered by maintaining the validity of their executive positions and continuity of church affairs.
Findings of Court:
The trial court held that the election petition has not become infructuous and that questions raised require trial.
Issues: The central issue was whether the petition could be dismissed based on the expiration of the self-declared body’s term.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that both sides claim legitimacy over the executive body, warranting a full trial to resolve disputes.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and parties involved in case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. context and background of the election petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. dispute over election process and existence of church bodies. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. ambiguity concerning church designation and authority. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. adjudication of procedural legitimacy and decision authority. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 6. the discretion of the trial court and dismissal of the petition. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
M.G. Priyadarsini, J.
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 procee
