EXECUTIVE BOARD OF METHODIST CHURCH IN INDIA Vs. EXECUTIVE BOARD OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURSH IN SOUTH ASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case on 31.01.2011 after hearing arguments of learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri Anurag Singh in person for the Respondents, the following order was passed:

(2.) This revision under Section 115 Code of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by District Judge, Mathura allowing an application under Section 92 Code of Code of Civil Procedure for granting permission to file the suit by the Plaintiff-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Copy of the proposed plaint which was filed along with application for permission to file the same under Section 92 Code of Code of Civil Procedure is Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application in this revision. The dispute relates to different properties of Church including land, buildings, hospitals, orphanage, schools, colleges, libraries (para 5 of the plaint). Plaintiff No. 1 is Executive Board of Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia (M.E. Church). It is alleged in Para-8 of the plaint that in 1942 a separate church organisation was registered in the name of Defendant-applicant No. 1 as Methodist Church in Southern Asia. It is mentioned in para 9 of the plaint that since 07.01.1981 Defendant-applicant No. 1 illegally started claiming to hold all properties of the trust which till then were held by the Plaintiff No. 1. In para 16 of the plaint, it is mentioned that Plaintiff No. 1 is a registered society registered on 25.11.1909 under Society Registration Act and last renewal was granted on 27.12.2005. In para 17, details of 12 properties allegedly belonging to the Plaintiff and sold by the Defendant No. 1 have been given. Thereafter, in para 18 details of three properties are given which according to the Plaintiffs, were likely to be sold by the Defendants. Thereafter, further allegations have been levelled against the Defendants like demolition of churches of historical importance, destroying the hospital at Mathura. In Schedule A of the plaint the details of the properties alleged to belong to the Plaintiff have be given. Thereafter in para 26, it is mentioned that on 23.12.2005 Defendants No. 1 to 3 tried to prevent the Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 from entering the Methodist hospital, Mathura. In para 29 it is mentioned that Defendants formed and got illegal society registered to grab Methodist Hospital Jaisinghpura (Mathura) on 13.03.2006.

(3.) Prior to passing order on the application under Section 92 C.P.C., temporary injunction order was passed by District Judge, Mathura on 29.05.2006 restraining the Defendants from selling, destroying, transferring or altering management of the properties of the trust. However, the said order was set aside by the High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 1713 of 2006. The learned District Judge in his order has held that Defendants had deliberately filed their objections beyond the time limit set by the High Court in the aforesaid F.A.F.O. hence that would not be considered and in view of the conduct of the Defendants it was not necessary to hear them before deciding the question of grant of permission/leave under Section 92 Code of Code of Civil Procedure In para 11 of its judgment learned District Judge has held that at the stage of deciding application under Section 92 Code of Code of Civil Procedure only averments of the plaint were to be seen and not the written statement.