This revision petition was disposed of after recording submissions. Both parties agreed to permit the revision petitioner to participate in devotional activities in the church, making it unnecessary to examine the merits of the impugned interim injunction order.
No order as to costs. C.M.P. No. Revision Petition dismissed by disposition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
C.R.P. No.5014 of 2011
Between:
K.Julies Seezer … Petitioner and M.Papaiah and others
… Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
C.R.P. No.5014 of 2011
ORDER:
This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2011 passed in I.A. No.373 of 2011 in O.S. No.105 of 2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali.
The revision petitioner is the defendant No.1 and the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents 5 to 10 are the defendants 2 to 7 in O.S. No.105 of 2011.
Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed I.A. No.373 of 2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC restraining the respondents 5 to 10 herein from interfering with the peaceful performance of devotional activities and prayers in the plaint schedule church. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, on 27.10.2011 allowed the petition granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners in the said I.A. restraining the respondents therein from obstructing with peaceful performance of devotional activities and prayers in the plaint schedule church performed by the petitioners therein and remaining church members and also Pastor.
The respondents therein were given liberty to participate in the peaceful performance of devotional activities and prayers without causing any obstruction to the petitioners therein and Pastor while performing the devotional activities and prayers in the plaint schedule church. Aggrieved by which, the defendant No.1, revision petitioner, who is the 1st respondent in the said I.A., filed the present revision
petition.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioners in the said I.A. who are the respondents 1 to 4 herein have agreed for allowing the respondents therein to participate in the devotional activities and prayers in the church in question but thereafter, the petitioners in the said I.A. are not allowing the revision petitioner to participate in the devotional activities and prayers in the church in question.
Along with this revision petition, the revision petitioner also filed CMP. No.7604 of 2011 seeking direction to the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District to provide police aid to Southern Telugu Baptist Church, at Katchri Mitta, Kavali.
Heard the learned counsel on either side at length.
The learned counsel for the respondents herein submitted that the respondents herein have no objection if the revision petitioner is permitted to participate in the devotional activities and prayers in the church in question.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also agreed for the same.
Though the revision petitioner and the respondents herein have sought to raise various contentions including that of the maintainability of the revision petition, having regard to the categorical submissions made by the learned counsel on either side that the revision petitioner may be permitted to participate in the devotional activities and the prayers in the church in question, it is not necessary to go into the details and the merits of the case with regard to the validity of the impugned order in the revision petition.
Accordingly, recording the above submissions, this revision
petition is disposed of. Consequently, C.M.P. No.7604 of 2011 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 14.12.2011 LSK
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Julies Seezer
M.Papaiah
G.Chandariah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
