HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 423 of 2020

ORDER:

Defendants in O.S. No. 1217 of 2019 filed this revision assailing the orders of XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad, dated 23.10.2019. By the impugned orders, the petition filed by the defendants in I.A. No. 869 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, laid the suit in O.S. No. 1217 of 2019 against the defendants, revision petitioners herein, seeking declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction. Pending the suit, the revision petitioners filed the impugned I.A. seeking rejection of the plaint inter alia contending that the suit is filed against the individual persons, but the termination of the membership of the respondents as members of the Centenary Methodist Hindustani Church by its letters, both dated 18.04.2019, is carried on by the Church; that the defendants-revision petitioners herein are no way concerned in their individual capacity and there is no personal rivalry between the plaintiffs and defendants, except their usual activities in the Church as a Secretary and Pastor, as such the present suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is their case that the letters, dated 18.04.2019 which are challenged in the suit, were addressed by the Methodist Hindustani Church, in which, it is categorically mentioned that the Pastorate conference of the Church held on 18.04.2019, after an animated and sustained discussion, unanimously decided to terminate the membership of the defendants-revision petitioners. The defendants, being the Secretary and Pastor of the Church were authorized by the Pastorate conference to convey the decision to the plaintiffs. It is their further case that the suit is also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party i.e., the Church, which has taken action against the plaintiffs-respondents herein for termination of their membership. Even the impugned notice was issued by the Church in its name. Therefore, in the absence of making the Church as a party to the suit, the suit, as filed, is not maintainable.

3. The plaintiffs, by way of filing a counter before the trial Court, contested the I.A. contending that the Church is not a proper and necessary party as alleged by the defendants- revision petitioners and that the defendants are the persons who have signed the letters, dated 18.04.2019 and as such, they were made as parties to the suit. Considering the rival pleadings, the learned trial Court dismissed the I.A. holding that non-joinder of the Church as necessary party to the suit does not hold any ground as it is established law that non-joinder of necessary parties is not a sole ground for rejection of plaint; and that the issue whether the Church had terminated the membership of the plaintiffs and the defendants have merely communicated the said decision taken by the Church to the plaintiff is the dispute to be resolved after a full-fledged trial, but not at this stage.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners- defendants submits that as the respondents-plaintiffs have filed the suit against the revision petitioners in their individual capacity without making the Centenary Methodist Hindustani Church as party defendant to the suit, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application rejecting the plaint. It is contended that the trial Court ought to have appreciated the letters dated 18.04.2019 in which it was clearly mentioned that the Committee of the Church unanimously decided to terminate the membership of the respondents-plaintiffs. It is contended that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties as the revision petitioners have nothing to do with the issues between the plaintiffs and the Church. In the entire pleadings in the plaint, there ar