R THANKHUMA Vs. SALVATION ARMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Lalsawirema, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. F.Lalengliana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The respondents had issued a letter/order dated 02-04-2014 dismissing the 11 petitioners from the Salvation Army. The letter/order further stipulates that the said 11 petitioners shall cease to hold their duty as Local Officer and shall return all the Books of the Salvation Army to the Commanding Officer. Being aggrieved, Declaratory Suit No. 12 of 2014 was filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl praying inter-alia that the plaintiffs/petitioners are entitled to hold their respective posts and designations or their commissions in the Salvation Army, Dinthar Corps. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed Civil Misc Application No. 122 of 2014 praying for grant of injunction restraining the opposite parties/respondents from enforcement of the letter/order dated 02-04-2014. The learned trial court after hearing the parties in Civil Misc Application No. 122 of 2014 passed an order dated 18-06-2014 by which the operation of the letter/order dated 02-04-2014 was suspended till final disposal of the Declaratory Suit No. 12 of 2014.

(3.) Mr. Lalsawirema, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned appellate court had no jurisdiction to entertain the FAO No. 4 of 2014 inasmuch as the valuation of the suit is more than five lakhs and under Section 17(2) of the Mizoram Civil Court Act, 2005, the learned appellate court has no jurisdiction beyond Rs. Five lakhs. He also submits that the respondents had taken new pleas before the learned appellate court which is not permissible in law. Further submission has been forwarded that the question of issuing injunction order was within the discretion of the learned trial court and that the learned appellate court can only interfere if the injunction order is found to be perverse in law. In the present case, no perversity or illegality has been reflected in the impugned order dated 02-12-2014 passed by the learned appellate court. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order should be interfered with.