Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rev. Thomas Kujur vs Hendery Jeol on 24 January, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3530
1 CR-429-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 24th OF JANUARY, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 429 of 2023
REV. THOMAS KUJUR AND OTHERS
Versus
HENDERY JEOL
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Singh - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Sachin Singh Yadav - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The revision was heard and reserved for orders on 25/11/2024.
2. This civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC has been filed by
the applicants/defendants challenging the order dated 17/02/2023 (Annexure
A/1) passed by the learned VI Civil Judge, Junior Division, Katni in Civil
Suit No.152-A/2020 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC
was dismissed.
3. The facts of the case in short are that applicants are the members
of the S.S. Philip & Jems Church (CNI), Katni. In the year 2020 after
completion of the term of the previous elected body in the Church, fresh
election notification was notified for conducting the election for subsequent
term. The election was conducted so that working of Church can be
regulated properly as per the Constitution of the Church of North India and
Bye-Laws as amended upto 03/10/2017. After the notification, eligible
persons had applied for the post. In the Sessions 2006 to 2008, the plaintiff
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3530
2 CR-429-2023
Hendery Jeol (respondent herein) was also an erstwhile post holder i.e.
Secretary in the elected body. Thereafter he contested the election many
times but he could not succeed. In the year 2018, the plaintiff had filed a
Civil Suit No.155-A/2018 for setting aside the election of Sessions 2018
which is still pending for consideration before the trial Court.
4. Against the election held in the year 2020, again he raised an
objection before the Collector and subsequently he filed Civil Suit bearing
No. RCSA No.152/2022 (Annexure A/2). In the suit, no prayer for setting
aside the election program was made. He prayed only for direction to
conduct election as per his legal notice dated 12/09/2020.
5. It is further submitted that election process is over and elected
body has already taken the charge, no cause survives and the matter only
remains academic in nature. On receiving the said notice, defendants filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC (Annexure A/3) which was
dismissed vide order dated 17/02/2023.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that purpose of an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is to keep out of courts
irresponsible law suits and the suits which are not maintainable, Court has
not done its duty in this matter. Defendant is opposing the misuse of process
of law. The Church Authority was not approached for any grievance in this
matter as per their Bye-Laws as suit is without cause which should be
dismissed.
7. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants prays for
allowing the revision and set aside the order dated 17/02/2023 wherein the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3530
3 CR-429-2023
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
supported the order of the trial Court.
9. The question is whether the suit was liable to be dismissed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The provision under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC
reads as under :-
"11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases :-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time
to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is
written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper
within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the
valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be
extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied
that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional
nature for correcting the valuation of supplying the requisite
stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the
Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave
injustice to the plaintiff."
(Emphasis supplied)
1 0 . Learned counsel for the applicants /revisionists relied on the
judgment passed in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others vs. Assistant Charity
Commissioner and others, (2004) 3 SCC 137, wherein in paras 11, 12 and 17
held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3530
4 CR-429-2023
"11. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, it was
held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a
real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something
purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7
Rule 11 of the Code.
12. The trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful and
not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and
meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it
should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code
taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has
to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v.
T.V. Satyapal)
17. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, the reliefs sought for
in the suit as quoted supra have to be considered. The real object
of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of courts
irresponsible law suits. Therefore, Order 10 of the Code is a tool in
the hands of the courts by resorting to which and by a searching
examination of the party, in case the court is prima facie of the
view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the court, in the
sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment
passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of M. Raja
Karunagaran vs The Bishop/President, Tamil Nadu Evangelical Lutheran
Church & others, in W.P.(MD) Nos. 9565 & 9566 of 2024 and W.M.P.
(MD)Nos.8669, 8670, 8672 & 8673 of 2024 order dated
18/04/2024, wherein in para 10 has held as under :-
"10. Dismissal of this writ petitions will not cast any cloud on the
rights of the petitioners. They have to establish their rights before
the trial Court. It is needless to mention that if any suit is instituted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3530
5 CR-429-2023
by the petitioners herein, the results of the impending elections
would be subject to the same. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
13. On perusal of copy of the plaint, it is seen that suit has been filed
for permanent injunction and not for mandatory injunction. The suit for
permanent injunction is to prohibit any person from doing some act which
infringes plaintiff's rights and it is only in a suit for mandatory injunction that
certain directions can be given to perform some positive act like getting the
notice published in the News Paper. In the relief clause, certain directions
have been sought like publication of public notice as per Bye-Laws 2006
and, thereafter conduct the election. Therefore, in the nature of suit, relief
claimed cannot be granted, as for the same, relief of mandatory injunction is
to be sought. On this ground alone, trial Court should have objected even
without any objection in this regard. It is the duty of the Court to see whether
the suit is defective.
14. On perusal of the suit, it is also seen that multiple grounds have
been raised in the suit like Church insisting on donation beyond the legal
provision as per the Constitution of the Church of North India and Bye-Laws
therefore, suit for mandatory injunction would be required.
15. Whether proper court fee, has been paid or not? Whether a suit
for permanent injunction is maintainable or not has to be seen, therefore,
even assuming that suit was not hit by Section 9 of the CPC. Section 9 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3530
6 CR-429-2023
CPC reads as under :-
"9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred - The Courts shall
(subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try
all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance
is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation I - A suit in which the right to property or to an
offence is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that
such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to
religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial
whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in
Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the suit
was not at all properly drafted.
17. Looking to the facts that learned trial Court has not considered on
the above aspects and both the parties were not given opportunity to argue on
these points. Hence, the order dated 17/02/2023 passed on an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
trial Court with a direction to consider the legal position of the suit and after
giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties on the point whether the
suit in the present form is maintainable or not, decide the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC again.
18. With the aforesaid observation, this Civil Revision is disposed
of.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3530
7 CR-429-2023
mc
